Hide Articles List

3 articles on this Page




THE CHARGE OF MURDER AT WREXHAM. ybi!<pA Hughei, 36, labourer, was arraigned on a charge of having, on that Oth of January, 1865, felon. iously killed and murdered one William Kendrick. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Mclntyre prosecuted, and Mr. Swetenham de. fended. The learned counsel for the prosecution said Gentle- men of the jury,—The prisoner Joseph Hughes stands eharged before you to-day with the wilful murder of William .Kendrick. I think it will pretty clearly ap- pear from the evidence that the prisoner at the bar caused the death of Wm. Kendrick. Mr. Mclntyre then briefly stated the case in accordance with the evi- dence hereinafter inserted. In conclusion, he said- It may be said this case enly amounts to manslaughter; upon that point you will be: directed by my lord and having heard the depositions of the deceased, it will be for you to say whether the prisoner is guilty or not guilty of murder. George Price was the first witness sworn. He de- pooed—I am a baker living at Wrexham. I knew Wm. Kendrick who is now dead. He was 21 years of age. I was standing with him in Bridge-street in Wrexham on the night of the 10th of January, near Mr. Parry's shop, exactly half-past 10 withm a minute. Prisoner came up close to us. He spoke to me and asked where he conid get lodgings. I told him in Brook-street. He replied_he knew that as well as I did. I said-" you have had your answer, why don't you go on." He was very saucy to me then. Kendriek then said—when you get a civil answer why don't you go on. He turned round to Kendrick and asked who he was. Ken- drick said he knew who the prisoner was, and if he did not go on he should make him. Prisoner then lifted up his arm and began squaring. Kendrick lifted up his in self-defence. They got into the middle of the Street about 10 yards from where I stood. Prisoner gave him a blow on the left side of the head. Prisoner ran away. Kendrick called out to me saying he was stabbed. I took him to the King's Head. Prisoner was taken into custody that night and brought to the King's Head. Crots-examined by Mr. Swetenham—Prisoner lifted his hand to strike me first. I got out of the way. It was moon-light. I did not see anything in prisoner's hand when he lifted it to strike me. He spoke to me first. I perceived he was a little in drink. The lodg- ings at Brook-side are common lodgings. Prisoner seemed angry because I directed him there. H- was very saucy to me about two minutes before Kendrick spoke to him. The blow be aimed at Kendrick struck him. Kondrick then aimed a blow at the prisoner. I cannot say whether the blow struck the prisoner. I will not undertake to say that no more blows took place between the two. I never saw the prisoner before that night. Re-examined by Mr. Melntyre—I did not see more than oneblowgiren by the prisoner. I saw many at- tempts by both parties. By the JUDGE—Kendrick was a smaU man. I had known Kendrick for nine months. He was not a par- ticularly quarrelsome man. I did not know of him get- ting into any trouble for fighting. Thomas Pugh stated—I ant a police-constable sta- tioned .tt \Vrexh;un. I apprehended prisoner on the 10th of January at the Swan Inn, Penybryn, about 300 or 400 yards from Bridge-street. I nn.)<: a charge of stabbing Wm. Kfndriek. He .'aid he knew nothing about it. 1 took him to the King's Head to Wm. Ken- drick, who s.ud the the man who stabbed him. I searched the prisoner and found a knife in his left trousers pocket. 1 produce the hnne, the point of which is bent. There was blood ou the bl.ule, on the prisoner's hands, and on -4. ex:).nined the trousers next UM:iing au-1 there werj signs ot the blood haviug been ?tsne.! ;n'v, L:lt it was .still there. never ;W pri-Kmer before that i'" fj"i \Vt,). Kendrick 't' i.hc teat, r.he ).')th oL January h.,t. I () ):'f) h:))] b! 'f.!i)]f !i an !Hci't wo'UtJ on the left !:c.:rth:<Mr. tt w.tS :1.{,,)llt finches r}n. 1 t.rowt it .d i'. "as ? in. in depth. I vMitfd on th-e.p him xt the surgery oree.h- hrotlwl' }N!lclp¡:1Iy att-ndcd him. De- (";I"t di;.d ou thf Hh ,,f M,de a post infl found th«t tu" wun.-t had not Lo-Alod, a.tdm pa:.i6iu:!up '.t probe ffouud thawouad had communicated to the bram. ?P? ?rane, the articulation of the jaw and Trough the ?? to the brain itself. Ou removing th. skull I found the brain and Its membranes very much congestea.a ? the base there was large effusion of matter resuK? from inflammation of the brain-that causing compreai aion of the brain which WM the immediate caM ? death. Such a knife as this would "'Bietthewouna. Cross-examined-Wm. Kendrick lived about .a cr lendar month and a day after the wound was inflicted I believe he walked to the surgery about 14 days a ter the injury. When I first saw him I did not BUppose the brain was inj ured. If I was of opinion that the brain had been injured perhaps I should have directed him (but not necessarily) to abstain from ntoxlcatlng liquors. Deceased's father died of consumption, There was no positive evidence that deceased had a scrofulous tendency. Re-examined—The wound waa the sol, e cause o„t< death. Dr. John Davies (brother of !ast witness)—I attended deceased on the llth of January, and continued toao so till his death. Inflammation set in on the eignm day. He got a little better after that, but mnamma- tion again returned. He died on the Hth of February last. Cross-examined—He did not go out as usual to my knowledge, t did not prescribe any diet for him. I at first told him to abstain from liquor, but exhaustion set in after that. It would have been better for him to remain in the house after the injuiy. P.C. Pugh recalled-Was present at the proceedings before the magistrates. I heard the depositions of the deceased and prisoner had an opportunity of cross-exa- mining him. The depositions of Wm. Kendrick were read and put in evidence. His testimony almost tallied with George Price's statement. He said-" All of a sudden, and without any provocation, the prisoner gave me a blow. I made a blow at him. I do not know whether I struck him. He struck me on the temple, and I called out that I was stabbed." This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. Swetenham proceeded amidst deep silence to ad- dress the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He said-It is with feelings of no ordinary anxiety that I rise to ad- dress vou on behalf of this unfortunate man. who is charged with this most serious crime. But my anxiety does not arise on account of any fault in the manner in which the case has been laid before you on behalf of the prosecution. On the contrary, my learned friend has laid it before you with that clearness and modera- tion that I feel perfectly sure the prisoner will have a fair trial. My anxiety is not caused either by any fear that the case will not obtain due consideration at your hands, because I feet assured that the prisoner has the advantage of being tried by a body of as intellectual gentlemen as could be found in the county of Denbigh. I listened to hear from what part of the county the jury was summoned, and I noticed that several were called from the immediate neighbourhood where the prisoner comes from. I did not object to the jury coming from that direction; in fact I was glad of it. But some of you having come from that neighbourhood, perhaps it may not be out of place for me to beg of you to dismiss from your minds everything that you have heard or said yourselves relating to this case, so as to come to the consideration of it with perfectly unbiassed minds. trust you will be guided solely by the evi- dence you have heard to-day, subject to the directions you will hear from my lord on the law of the matter. Gentlemen, my anxiety arises from a feeling that in the mode I have conducted the examination, I may per- haps have failed to illustrate some facts which will re- duce this serious crime to the lesser one of manslaughter. When a person is charged with unlawfully killing an- other, he may be indicted for two offences—the minor one is manslaughter; and the greater one is murder. Manslaugh ter may be defined to be the killing of a per- son by another without any indication of malice in his mind at the time. It is said that there is no crime known to the law which so much differs in degree as the crime of manslaughter. One kind of manslaughter may be of a very lenient description—almost justifiable -for which even a day's imprisonment is aufEcient. On the other hand, manslaughter may be of amoat serious nature, verging closely on the crime of murder, and for that the law will indict *a very long term of penal servi- tude. It is frequently impossible to distinguish or separate murder from manslaughter; and of all eases I have heard of, this case demands most anxious consi- deration. The crime of murder is defined to be- having of malice aforethought killed and destroyed a person." Of malice aforethought"—gentlemen, that malice may be direct malice, or malice in law. I said the crime of manslaughter differed in degrees, and was considered to differ more than any other crime; but I ask you whether the revelations of modern* history, in Oitf times, do not shew that murder may differ in decrees almost if not quite as much as the crime of manslaughter. -The public have been shocked by the unprecedented accoucto of murder in the newspapers, committed under circumstances of the deepest atrocity. For manslaughter the punishment M rewarded by a day's imprisonment or a long period of penal servitude; but for murder, the only punishment is death Then, gentlemen, I apprehend you wm approaen tnM case with feelings of the greatest care, to see whether it ie in any way possible, upon the evidence laid before you, to impute to the prisoner at the bar malice in tact or malice in law. We can very easily understand what is meant by malice In fact when we read of a man and his wife in London inviting a man to their house- they pretend to be kind to him; afterwards the man is missing, but ultimately hit) skeleton is found in the same house, in the kitchen, under a table, and those who had taken his life away were eating and drinking as if there was no skeleton in the house to rise up some day in judgment against then.! That WM a most diabolical murder, for which the punishment of death was most justly given. Later on did we hear of a person having affected to cherish fond friendship towards another, but in order to gain his money he gives him poison-he faithfully attends to him in his sickness, and watches his dying agonies. The poor man dies, and is found to have been poisoned by his friend t There was malice aforethought" there, and an ordinary death on the scaffold was almost too good a punishment. Later again was all the world terrined by a gentleman being thrown out of a railway carnage and murdered for the sake of t paltry watch. Surely there was "malice aforethought" in that case, and the rich punishment deserved was death, But gentlemen, are not these very different cases to the case now under inquiry at this court. It is said that if, upon a sudden quarrel be- tween two persona, one draws his aword and stabs the other dead, he may be found guilty of murder—why, because the nght was begun under circumstances of undue advantages. But is there one tittle of evi- dence to bring the prisoner at the bar within that rule of law? I hope; gentlemen, ? you will be able to bring him under another rule of law, viz., if the par- ties attack each other on equal terms, and one draws a knife in a fit of passion to stab the other fatally, it is a case of manslaughter. The evidence in this case will, I think, justify me asking you to disbelieve that this man had a knife in his hand before the fight began-he sought no undue advantage over the deceased, neither did he at the outset shew any disposition to have his Hood. If the evidence warrants you to say so, he is only guilty of manslaughter. Now, just let us briefly allude to the evidence. The learned Counsel read Geo. Price's evidence, and commented upon it as follows:— The prisoner was Irritated by being directed to a low class of lodging houses, and he was further irritated by the words, you have got your answer, why don't you go on," and if you don't go on, 1 will make you." Price and prisoner were saucing each other for two mi. nutes. Consider that,—a drunken man at hatf-paat ten at night being sauced for two minutes; it was sufficient time to cause hot blood to boil. The prisoner, it is said, lifted his hand to hit Price, and he had no knife in it then. That is an all-important statement. It shews the prisoner had no knife in his hand when he first at- tacked the deceased. The learned Counsel then read the depositions of the deceased, and the evidence of the policeman. The testimony of the deceased, he remind- ed the jury, was weakened materially, inasmuch as he could not be cross-examined. The prisoner, it was stated had an opportunity of cross-examining, but a man of his class of life was incapable of doing so. It WM said also, that prisoner ran away after striking the fatal blow. If he had a mind of killing Kendrick, would he not have ran out of the country, or endeavour to hide himself. He did not do that; on the contrary, he was found the same night within 300 or 400 yards of the spot where the 6ght took place. Did that shew a eui!ty conscience! It was evidence in favour of the pri- soner There was a nght, and he thought it was pretty dear that it wa." a fair 6ght in the beginning. It is not t case ( continued the learned counsel) on which much cm be said on ruined hopes or blighted anectioiM.—it is 1. mere common vulgar drunken row,—I have hardly a topic to enlist your sympathies on behalf of the prisoner. lit- is pMr and friendless; the only friends he has now to protect him are you to you he appeals to judge hM e tse {uriy and impartially; to you he appeals whether he had provocation—whether he did not attempt to figllt fairly and was driven in a fit of passion to do that which ho is now very aorry for. It is a very long time sinee the county of Denbigh has been shocked by a scene of p.iUic execution, and I trust that you w)U by your verdict to day, save it now fromsuchasc.ne. I do not. wish todeter you from doing your duty; 1 shout.! b!u.h and dishonour my profession, were I to My one v.-ordtogetany other verdict except that which the hw and justice requires you to give. You !tal"" a tluty to perf,)i-:ii to volir cl)ulltry, to to the PI-i- HOller .n.1,to Cod I ask you ,igiiin, alth(l\lfiil at the fear of repetition-Is there one particle of evidence to lead you to suppose th?t th? man origin)); in the en- 1 ?u?er, .u? the ?..I of the decked; W.. it not in the moment of irritation he tliew the knife. The ques- tion of character may be of cons iderable importance and I h 11 11 0 conSI era e Importance and I shall cal witnesses to prove that the prisoner is not a sullen and mahctousman.-on the contrMy, that he is a passionate man-easily aroused, and in a moment if terwardsveryfnendly. The prisoner. unquestionabl y, hMdonea most wrong and wicked act, and for that he must MSer, but the question is, whether he shall suS'er a long penodof penal servitude, or whether he shall ex. patiate bishfe on the seaSbld. I implore you to give h' ore you 0 gIve such & verdict as shall satisfy your own consciences and as jushce to this poor unfortunate man demands you to give. I trust you wiU be tbie to lay your heads on yourptUotvs to-mghtwitha testimony in your bosoms that you shall have done your duty to God by saying that the prisoner is guilty only of the lesser crime of manslaughter. Wm. Morris—I am half-brother to the prisoner. I have known him all my life. He is naturally a man of quiet disposition. His LoRDSHtp declined to admit the question-Is his temper easily aroused ? Another witness to character was called, but did not answer to his name. His LoRDsnip, in summing up, said it would be quite superfluous for him to cay more than one word on the importance of this enquiry. On the one hand the dis- position of the prisoner's life, and on the other hand, the safety of society was left to the judgement of the jury. The public safety depended in a great measure on whether or not they discharged their duty in cases of this nature. Before he would call their attention to the evidence he begged to state what he thought the law to be on the case. In the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the defence there had been long conceived and cherished malicious design to put to death. How- ever, it was not necessary, to constitute the crime of wilful murder, that there should be an intention to kill. To illustrate the point by an illustration which would be plain to them, he supposed a man was attacked by another on the highway, beaten and stabbed fatally with intention only to seriously injure him, nobody could doubt that that wjs a case of wilful murder. Intention to do grievous bodily harm was sufficient to bring the case within the meaning of the indictment upon which JoMph Hughes was charged. In many oases of murder thf malice aforo-thought" was of long standing, but it WM not essential that it should be of long standing to reader the act of killing a crime of murder. It was immaterial in point of law whether the malice afore- thought" was of long or short standing. If, however, the malice in the present case did not exist before the encounter, and was caused in hot blood, by a serious blow on the part of the deceased himself, then that was not such as would sustain a charge of murder, but of manslaughter. That, he apprehended, to be the law upon the question. Therefore, the point for the jury to decide was—was the fatal Now innieted after a serious blow by the deceased, and in hot blood-because it was not every kind of blow by the deceased that would extenuate the crime of murder and bring it down to manslaughter—it must be a serious blow. His lord- ship then minutely read his notes of the evidence, oc- casionally making comments as he proceeded. He ob- served that the first intimation of violence, or rather force, was made by the deceased, but the original ag- gressor evidently was the prisoner. Having repeated the question for the decision of the jury, he said in a solemn tone-and I am afraid I must add, that if you cannot ex- press an opinion as to the whether a serious blow was inflicted by the deceased, you must find a verdict of wilful murder. The closing sentence of his lordship's observations created great sensation in court. The jury retired,—and after an absence of sixteen minutes they returned with a verdict of-MAN SLAUGHTER. His LonMHiP said-Joseph Hughes-the jury have taken a merciful view of your case, and I-am not at aii ture that they have taken a right view of it. At all events, I shall assume that by the sentence I am about to pronounce upon you. If your crime be not murder, it is a very aggravated case of manslaughter. You must have taken that knife to inflict a deadly injury upon a fellow-creature under the influence of passionate feel- ings, and it is a warning to all what may be don& under that momentary madness which men call anger. You are sentenced to ten year's penal servitude. NISI PRIUS. The nMt prtM) business WM resumed after the trial of Joseph Hughes. ACTION FOR AN ASSAULT. Elizawth Davies v. Robert.Tones.-This was an action to recover damages foraaM9a.uIt. Mr. Mdntyre,in- structed by Mr. James, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Morgan Lloyd and Mr. Sweteaham, instructed by Mr. Griffith, for defendant. Mr. Mclntyre stated that the plaintiff was a widow reaiding at TynySynon, near Llanddoget, and defendant was a surgeon practising in Uanrwst. Defendant wa< sued for unlawfully entering ptaintifTs house and therein assault her. Defendant pleaded not guilty to both counts—aUeging in answer to the first that the dweiung- house was not the plaintits. Elizabeth Davies said-I am the plaintiff in this action. I am a widow, 67 years of age_j[ have two sons living with me. On the mght ot the rat ot J uiy, aner i had gone to bed, about half past 12, I heard my son John ahouting for me. I went down stairs, and found him on the floor and Mr. Jones, defendant, on the top of him—beating and thrashing him. I lifted my son up, and he ran for his life. Mr. Jones's father was also in the house. My son Kdward came in, and defendant attacked him. Defendant also abused and kicked me, He injured my thigh, aud I have suffered greatly from tt. Examined by Mr. Morgan Lloyd-I walked to Den- bigh from Hanrwst, and came from Denbigh here by train. Did not take hold of Mr. Jones. Did not scratch his face nor tear his iinen. John Davies-I am plaintiff's son. Have been in the service of defendant's father, and afterwards in the tervice of Mr. Hughes, defendant's partner. On the night in question defendant came to my mother's house. He attacked me, and I ran for my life. Left him with my mother. Heard her fall against the stairs. She afterwards complained to me of being beaten by defend- ant. Margaret Thomas stated that plaintiff had shewn her leg to her the day after the quarrel. It wa< then dis- coloured. 0_' Dr. Uavies, of Llanrwst, testified having seen ptaintttt a leg, three or four days after the ]st of July. It was very much discoloured, and presented the appearance of having been kicked. Examined by Mr. Morgan Lloyd—Did not prescribe for her. Did not see any signs of chronic tumour on her leg. Did not examine her very closely. Re-examined—I believed them to be recent in- juries. Mr. Morgan Lloyd opened the defence, and observed that he should be able to [ay bef .re the court such evi- dence as would shew that the action was brought for the purpose of getting costs and damages, and not because the oH woman had any real grievance against the de- fendant. Defendant's father and plaint.in' 'ived within 60 yards to each other. PJamtifTs sons went to defend- ant's father's house .at three o'clock one morning and knocked him up, making use of abusive language to- ward-. him. Dr. Jones was told of this misbehaviour, tnd he went to remonstrate with plaintiff's sons, which gave rise to the quarrel. Dr. Jones acted iu self-defence, but did not touch the old VlOlDan. She had not )< ceived much injury, as the jury might conclude from the fact that she had walked from Hanrwst to Denbigh, a distance of twenty miles, and he would adduce evi- dence to prove that she had worked in the harvest last year. Mr. WiUiam Evau Hughes, surgeon, described the in. juries as haviug parti'uly disabled the p]aintiBf. They were not of a v*fy ssrious nature. Edward Davies, ntaiutuTs ton, corroborate! his mo ther's version of the fray' and admitted that he was i,hs tenant of TynySynon. The count for trespaM was then struck out of the de claration. Dr. Jones, examined by Mr. Swetenhatt, said—I am the defendant in this action. Remember ihe night of the 1st of July, when I had occasion to go to my father's house. In returning, I saw the plaintiff standing in her night dress at her door. I asked her what she thought of the conduct of her sons in going to my father's house in the middle of the night to attack him. She replied that she cou)d not atop them. Presently the son Ed- ward made his appearance in the road. Did not see John at alt. When E tward saw rne, he turned to go to the house, I caught hold of him by the shoulder. He struggled and took hold of the frame of the door. The old woman and M\\ard pulled me into the house. E{lwar¡} irnrnediately attacked file, and a8st\ultd IDO as much as lie possibly could. The old woman also scratched my face with one hand, and held me by the throat with the other. (Laughter.) She tore my shirt and waistcoat. I caUed to my father to take her away from me. He did so, I swear that I did nut touch her. examined by Mr. :'Irc Tnt,yre-E,lwanl had hold of the door; the otd w'mau was puUiug him in, and t was piling him out. That is what I call being ;m))t"l into tha house. (Laughter.) 1 struggled with E'tward, but. I <!o not believe that [ struck him. John Jones (.let'cn l:.ut's father) corroborated his sou's e'i tenee. .).u'garet Thomas deposed—I have known plaintiff for m'n'Hthan 11 years. Remember St'eing her ou tin- 2f;d of Ju! Hhe sheH't'd her l.'g to mù. It was black ami blue. Iob:p''Vt")thatIh''jlseHnit so three years o She hiLtll,en accustomed to shew her leg at Capel Garmon for the purpose of getting alms. It was affect- ed with rheu'.natij'u. I saw tier in the evening of the 2ud July carrying coal on her shoulders. Examined—Cannot say whether the discolouration had been caused recently. I can only say that her leg was black and blue three years ago. Arthur Davies, farmer, stated that plamt.t.<nf'w.o,r,khe.d d for him at the last harvest. Cross-examined-It was the corn harvest, in Septem- ber. I do not think she was with me more than a week. Mr Morgan Lloyd commented upon the evidence, and remarked ? thiswas not the nrst time for ?he plain- tiff to try to obtain money by means of the '?? teg for she had been at C?pel Garmon exhi.? bitm.?g it three years ago with a view of receiving alms. Mr. Melntyre made an eloquent appeal to the jury on behalf of the pontiff, who, he ¡Said, had been wan. tonly treated by Dr. Jones. The bruises were on her leg; that fact could not be denied. How came they there! It was absurd to suppose that they were of three years'standing. His LORDSHIP summed up, apparent„ ly in r favour of plaintiff. The jury had to decide which of the parties told the truth. If Dr. Jones's story was true, he was the most forbearing man in Wales, for he would have the court to believe that he was the victim of all, and nobody's assailant. If the jury should 6nd a verdict for the ptaintin, he directed them not to allow ignommous damages, but such a moderate sum as would satisfy the justice of the case which, he was of opinion, might have been heard at an inferior court. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, f2. '¡ ACTION FOR TRESPASS AND DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. Edward !%«m<M t!. Af. John Jones and P. S. Hum- pAftM, Llangwtn.-A special jur.y case. Mr. Morgan Lloyd and Mr. Coxou, instructed by Mr. Hughes, Corwen, appeared for plaintiff; Mr. Mclntyre, instructed by Mr. Parry Jones, Denbigh, for the Kev. J. Jones Mr. Swetenbam and Mr. Talbot Smith, in- structed by Mr. Louis, Ruthin, for P.S. Humphreys. Mr. Coxon having read the pleadings, Mr. Morgan Lloyd stated that the plaintiff was a boot maker, carrying on business at LIangwm; the defen- dant, the Rev. J. Jones, was the rector of Llangwm, and a magistrate in that district; and defendant, Hum- phreys, was a police-sergeant in the same place. In the second count the jury had heard a charge of having ma- liciously, and without reasonable and probable cause issued and caused to be issued a warrant to search t],?: plaintiff's house, and he WM sorry to say that aa regards both defendants, but particularly the defendant Mr. Jones, there were grounds for supposing that the war- rant was not issued in the regular and legal course of business. An enmity bad been in the mind of Mr. Jones against the plaintiff, and he had shewn it before this event. The plaintiff, who was the son of the parish clerk, used to go invariably to church, but on one aeea- sion he was induced by curiosity to go and listen to a great luminary in one of the dissenting chapels. In consequence of that Mr, Jones caUed him to account, and asked him why he went to hear "those sectarians." Mr. Jones was in the habit of catting his communicants together-so far imitating the Dissenters—and on the next Sunday evening after the plaintiff had been at the chape], he catted a special meeting of the members, at which he read one or two canons against heretics, applied no doubt to the plaintiff, who was present. The following day (Monday morning) Mr. Jones saw the plaintiff, and said he would rather see him come out of a public-house drunk, or out of a brothel, than out of a Dissenting chapel. Plain- tiff afterwards left the church and joined a Dissenting body, and ever since Mr. Jones had persecuted him. He (the learned counsel) was happy to say that this bigotry was a solitary instance, or one at all events of a small minority, amongst the clergy of the Established Church. It was essential in this country that the Dis- senters and the Church of England should go together in harmony and good-will—the interest of one was the interest of the other. He had been obliged to bring this forward, because the jury wond be unable without it to understand the case. Sometime after, the plaintiff was employed to watch game on the Garthmeilio estate, but owing to Mr. Jones having charged him with being a poacher he waa discharged from his situation. In the month of June last, a farmer's house called Yatrad Bach, belonging to Mr. David Owen, was btoken into, and three pairs of boots and a piece of butter were stolen therefrom. Defendant Humphreys heard of the robbery, and made enquiries about it of Mr. Owen. Although Mr. Owen did not te!! him he suspected the plaintiff (who had always borne a good character), he laid an information against him before the Rev. Mr. Jones, and upon that information a warrant was issued to March his house. On his way to the house, Humphreys informed a person that he was going to search Edward Thomas' house on suspicion of having committed a robbery at Ystrad Back, before he knew what would be the result. Plaintiff offered no resistance, but said, "You shall search my house if you search other houses, as well, so as not to throw a slur on ay charac- ter." Humphreys insisted upon searching it, without even producing his warrant, and he searched no other house. None of the burglarious articles were found in plaintiffs house, and after the search was over Hum- phreys said, "I thought I should find nothing." Plaintiff asked Humphrey;) who to!d him to search his house, but he would not tell. Plaintiff, knowing where his enemy was, added "the people at the the Rectory." The origin of the suspicion was no doubt in the mind of Mr. Jones. It was a great injury to a man to have his house searched under suspicion of having committed robbery, and however Mse the suspicion was, his enemies would always upbraid him about it. The plaintiff, he strongly tubmitted, was entitled to a rerdict in this action. Edwd. Thomas was then examined at greit length by Counsel on each side, Md his evidence did not differ in substance from the statement of Mr. Morgan Lloyd. [The Court adjourned at five o'clock till next day.] On Tuesday, Plaintiffs wife corroborated her hus- band's evidence regarding the search made by Hum- phreys. David Owen, of Ystrad Bach, was then examined. He stated that three pairs of shoes, and three pieces of but- ter were stolen out of his bakehouse in the month of June last. Saw Humphreys before plaintiffs house was searched, but did not say that he suspected the plain- tiff had stolen the goods. Said that the lock of the bakehouse had been on a pinfold at one time, and no- body knew how to open it except plaintiffs family. Plaintiffs grandfather had made a false key to open it when on the pinfold, to release his donkeys. The defence placed great reliance on David Owen's statement respecting theplamtiS"a family being the ouly family who could open the luck. This, in fact, was the ground of suspicion upon which Humphreys acted; and Humphreys, at a further stage of the case, swore that David Owen had positively told him he suspected Ed- ward Thomas. Thos Jones, farmer, stated that Humphreys had toM him that he was going to search plaintiffs house, and warned him not to tell anybody. Other witnesses were examined to shew that plaintiffs business was injured in consequence of his house being searched. Mr. Melntyre proceeded to address the jury for Mr. Jones. There was no evidence to prove that he had taken action in the matter further than signing the warrant upon information laid before him on oath by Humphreys, and he was perfectly justined in doing 60. A discussion now followed by the learned counsel on both sides on the points of law connected with the case, all of which by the ruling of the Judge were reserved for decision at the Court of Exchequer. HM LORDSHIP thereupon informed the jury that the questions regarding the reasonable and probable eauae of suspicion," and the legality of the course adopted in issuing and executing the warrant were not questions for their deliberation. Mr. Melntyre made an able defence on behalf of iNf r. Jones, denouncing the idea of imputing malice to him against plaiatiff,having always befriended his family, and his fattier was still employed by him as parish clerk. The allegation respecting the retirement of plaintitt from the church (more than three years ago) was so paltry that he would not even put Mr. Jones in the witness-box to contradict it. William Pritt, Esq.. foreman of the jury, here said that the jury had made up their minds that there was no malice proved on the part of Mr. Jones. Mr. Swetenham called police sergeant Humphreys to prove that he had searched the house by "the )eave and license of plaintiff." He had offered to search another house, but plaintiff agreed that he should not do so, on condition that the search of his house should be kept private. Mr. M. Lloyd replied to the case for the defence, and maintained that malice on the part of Mr. Junes had been clearly proved, and as he had not thought proper to contradict plaintiffs evidence, it was true that he did ¡say" I should rather see you conle out of a public house drunk or out of brothel, than out of :t Sectarian place of worship." The Jt'DGE iu summing up remarked that it was very much t" Le regretted that the Hev. Mr. Jones snonid [i.tve made use of tin' expressions inputud to him, and he (his lordship) was quite sure that upnn calm considera- tion he would be the iirst to regret it. It behoved him of all C l ir i ,,t i itil ( I el),)- and aU others to speak respeetiully of all Christian deno- minations f?r they all belonged to the same Holy l?'.th, whic: had done more lor the reformation of the world than any other mf.ui:Ul Christian sects had. he be- i lieved, tho same iight from heaven, shining as i[ were tln'o"hgla<!si'so: different colours. The only points for their consideration w.'ra:—Uid Humphreys te.uch the house Dy uf plaintiff? 2.- IV as there m.di'c" on tin; p'trtnf Mr. JI,Ll".i in issuing the warrant ? 3.upp.)si)j,t'tl,i' pr.mts of law were d.cidedinp);nnt;tr's favour, what amount ot damages wontdthey allow ? Answer—t. Yes. 2. \o. 3. One farthing. The JuuGn s'ud lie hoped the verdict of the j II y would be:uieudtothc(XL!i. ¡