Hide Articles List

1 article on this Page

f=—————-. —— NORTH WALES SPRING…

Detailed Lists, Results and Guides
Cite
Share

f = ————— —— NORTH WALES SPRING ASSIZES. I CARNARVONSHIRE. I The learned Judge of Awize, The Hon. Sir John Barn- ard Byles, arrived at Carnarvon by railway at six o'clock on Saturday evening, and proceeded to open the Com- mission at the County Hall,escorted by the High Sheriff, Charles Millar, Esq., and a large body of the Police. On Sunday, his Lordship similarly escorted, attended divine service at Christ Church, where the Assize sermou was preached by the Rev. Edward Powell, Sheriff's Chaplain. The anthem sung bv the choir was taken from the Book of Chronicles, 'Thine is the Power. MONDAY. I On Monday morning the learned Judge left his lodg- ings at 10 o'clock in the Hitfh Sheriff's carriage, and pro- ceeded to the new County Hall, which every one, the Judge amongst the rest, seemed greatly to admire. When his Lordship had taken his seat upon the Bench, the business of the Assizes was commenced by swearing In the Graud Jury by the usual Officer. The following gentlemen comprised THE GRAND JURY: I W. Bulkeley Hushes, Esq., TUsooch, foreman T. ).. J) Jones Parry, Esq., Madryn Park John Williams, Esq., TrelTos D. Williams, Esq Deudraeth Castle Major J. V. H. Williams, BAngor C J. Sampson, Esq., Carnarvon John Millington, Esq.. Bryntition R. IV Thomas, Eq. Coed Helen J. P. Whitehead, Esq., Glangwna John .Tones, Esq Ynysgain, Criccieth O. (irifilth, Esq Cefn coch G. H. Owen, Esq., Ymwlch Robert Davies, Esq., Bodlondeb H. P. Manlev, Esq., Brynteg 0. Massey Jones, Esq., Mynydd Ednyfed. Criccietn E Windus Mathew, Esq., Wern. Portmadoc R. W. Forster Esq, Bryn Eglwys E Anwyl Owen, Esq Parkia, Criccieth C. Pearson, Esq., Bryn Seiont T. Churchill Esq., Carnarvon W. nayward, Esq., Penbryn Seiont Un;h Roberts, Esq Llwynybrain His LORDSHIP then proceeded to address the Grand Jury but in so inaudible a voice (so far as the Report- er's box was concerned) that it was quite impossible to hear one connected sentence. This arose, we think, from two causes first his Lordship's back was turned towards th(Reporters as he faced the Grand J ury when he ad- dressed them; and secondly we think the seat is some- what too much raised above the floor of the Hall. As far as we could make out, His Lordship commenced by expressing his pleasure at meeting the gentlemen of Carnarvonshire for the first time, especially upon the occa- ,,nificeiit iieiv fiall, which sion of their opening their magnificent new Hall, which he said would bear comparison with any other he had seen in the Principality. We then understood him to make somo remarks upon the propriety of having noble and fine buildings in which to administer justice, and to transact the business of the County. He then briefiy referred to two cases in the calendar, which he was glad to find was not a heavy one, viz., that of Kobert Hughes and Owen Griffith, who were charged with poaching at night, armed with guns, in the parish of Llanfairfechan; and of Evan Williams who stood charged with unlawfully wounding with intent to commit murder in the parish of Aberdaron. In the first case, they would see that the evidence of guilt, almost solely depended upon the testi- mony of one policeman, and the question was as to whether or not he had made a mistake as to the identity of the persons charged with the offence. They would hear the evidence, and then they could say whether or not it was probable they would be convicted if a true bill was found against them The other case, that of Evan Williams, was somewhat peculiar. A man went to his house late at night, and evidently in mistake, as his intention was to go to another house. The prisoner, it would seem, hearing a noise outside opened the door, and without asking questions, proceeded to strike the man with some sharp weapon, believing doubtless, that the man was thure for some bad purpose. He inflicted serious wounds upon the prosecutor, so that he was rendered al most insensible. Of course a man has a right to defend himself and his house, if attacked but it was a question whether in this case the use of such a weapon as he must have employed wis a legally justifiable act. How. ever, they would hear the evidence and judge for them- selves. He then thanked them for theirlattendance, and dismissed them to their duties. TRIAL OF PRISONERS. HIGHWAY ROBBERY AT BANGOR. I Philip Proudley, 20, mariner, was charged with steal- ing from the person of Owen Jones, of the vessel Mary Jane, Amlwch, a silver watch and guard, at Baugor, on the 22nd of January last. Mr. Parkins appeared for the prosecution, the pri- soner being undefended. Mr. Parkins stated the particulars of the charge, and then called the following witnesses to prove the same, the prisoner having pleaded that he knew nothing at all of the matter, as he was so very tipsy at the time Joseph Morris was first called. He said—I am a police-constable stationed at Bangor. I remember the night of the 22nd of January last. A little after 12 o'clock at night I was near the Garth Road when I heard cries of murder." I then went quickly in the direction of the sound, P.C. Owen being with me. I saw a man on the ground—Owen Jones; and the pri- soner Philip Proudley was close by. In fact, both men were down, the prisoner being uppermost, t shouted out; and then the prisoner ran away, and I ran after him, and succeeded in catching him. I and Owen then took him to the station-house and searched him. We found a watch upon him, which the other constable has got in his possession. The prosecutor, Owen Jones, was rather the worse for liquor, as was likewise the prisoner. P.C. Goronwy Owen-On the night of the 22nd of January I was with the last witness in Garth Road, when I heard a noise. On going towards where it pro- ceeded from we met a woman—a prostitute of the name of Proudley. I saw the prisoner run away, and the last witness ran after him and caught him. We then went to the station and searched the prisoner. We found a watch upon him and a knife, and also a part of a watch guard. There was a part of a guard upon the presecutor's neck, and it seemed as if the guard had been cut with a knife. This witness then produced the watch and the said pieces of the guard. Owen Jones-I am a sailor on board the Mary Jane, of Amlwch. On the 22n,1 of January I was at Bangor, the vessel being anchored off the Garth Point. In the evening I went on shore, but on my return I missed the boat, which had got aground. I then returned to Ban- gor and remained there until about 12 o'clock at night. I then started off for the ship along the Garth Road. I certainly had had a little drink, and I was slightly in- toxicated. When on the road I suddenly found myself on the ground. The prisoner Philip Proud ley threw me down, He also hit me a blow on the side of my nose. I then cried out. The police came up and the prisoner ran away. I went with the police to the station when they took Proudley into custody. The watch now produced is my watch. I was wearing it that night, and before I started to the vessel I looked at it to see what time it was, and it was a little before 12 o'clock. The guard produced is also mine, and I wore it that night. By the JUDGK—I was going alone towards the vessel. I saw the girl Proudley going down the Garth Road. She went from the Beaumaris Castle public-house. The prisoner said he had nothing to sav nor any questions to a<k, as he was very intoxicated at the time. His LORDSHIP then proceeded to sum up, and re- marked that it was evidently a case of highway rob- bery. It may have been that the truth was not told about the girl Proudly; but supposing the prosecutor had spoken to her, that of itself would not alter the complexion of the case. The Jury almost immediately returned a verdict of guilty. A paper was then handed to the Judge, in which a very good character was given to the prisoner from previous masters. He also belonged to the Militia, and he received a good character as a militiaman. The police also stated that they had nothing against him for any former offence. His LORLISUIP then said it was only just in this case that a good character should be considered, and as there were reasons to believe that. this was his first offence, the sentence would be but light. Still as the crime was a serious one there must be a substantial punishment. Sentence —C calendar month's imprisonment. EMBEZZLEMENT AT PORTMADOC. Edward Hughes, 24, described as a labourer, but who is a sharp, intelligent looking young man, pleaded guilty to having embezzled the sums of a half-sovereign, ten shillings, aud several other amounts, the moneys of Messrs. Jones, Roberts, and Williams, surgeons, Port- madoc and Festiniog, in the parish of Ynyscynhaiarn, in the month of February last. Mr. Morgan Lloyd, who appeared for the prosecution, said that since the prisoner had been taken into custody for the above offence, it had been ascertained that he had obtained goods upon false pretences. After a brief conversation, the J UDOE said he should defer the sentence until the following day, Tuesday, when the prisoner was sentenced to 9 months' imprison- ment with hard labour. FELONY AT PORTMADOC. James G>rman and Charles Glover, two seamen, were charged with stealing one coat, one shirt, one trowsers, and four shillings aud sixpence, the property of Robert Roberts, of the vessel Edward Windus, at Portmadoc, in the parish of Ynyscynhaiarn. Mr. Hilton appeared for the prosecution, the prisoners being undefended. Mr. Hilton briefly stated the outlines of the facts of the case, aud then called the witnesses in support of the charge. Robert Roberts, the prosecutor, said—I belong to the Vessel, Edward Windus. The prisoners likewise be- longed to the same ship up to the 13th inst., when they were discharged. I kept my clothes om board. On the morning of the 14th iust. I, missed a coat and some money. The coat was placed upon the berth, saii *a money was in the pocket of a pair of trowsers. The money I lost amounted to about 5s., viz., a florin, two separate shillings, and, I think, a sixpence. When I missed the money and the coat, I gave information to the police. This was about 8 o'clock in the morning. When I returned to the vessel about 11 o'clock, I also missed a shirt and a pair of trowsers. The shirt and trowsers were by themselves iu a bag, and were not with the coat. The prisoners declined to question this witness. The whole of the articles stolen (with the exception of the money) were then produced. The prisoners in answer to a question put to them by the Judge, said they knew nothing whatever how the things, said to be stolen, came to be in the bag. Ann Griffith-I keep a shop in Treaaftoc. I remem- ber the prisoners coming to my shop on the 14th inst, They came about 11 o'clock in the morning. They asked me to send a bundle to Carnarvon, which I re- fused to do. When thev were in the shop, P.S. Griffith Roberts came in and took possession of the bundle. The prisoner Gorman here stated that it was be who took the bundle in, and that he merely asked the wit- ness to allow it to remain there for a short time. Mrs. Griffith continued—It was the taller one (Gor- man) who asked me to send the parcel on to Carnarvon. The other one (Glover) was not in the shop then, and when he was in he merely asked for half an ounce of to- bacco. P.S. Griffith Robert8-I am a police-sergeant stationed at Portmadoc. Was at Anne Griffiths' shop about 11 o'clock on the day in question, and I saw the prisoners there. Charles Glover was wearing the coat now pro- duced. He (Glover) said it was no use humbugging about it, but the things belonged to a person on board. Gorman said the bundle belonged to him. The prisoner, Gorman, denied this version of the affair, and replied that what he said was that the hand- kerchief was his, but that the things inside belonged to somebody else. The witness distinctly denied that the prisoner said so. Inspector Cornelius DavieFi-I am an inspector of police, stationed at Portmadoc. After the prisoners weie locked up I went to them. I asked what money they had got, when I found that Glover had got 13s. 9d. and Gorman had 10s. 5d. Amongst the money was a florin. The prisoners then handed in a written) statement, in which they strenuously denied having stolen the pro- perty found upon them, they asserting that they did not know how they came to be possessed of it. They had shipped from Plymouth, but had not signed any articles, and they had no notice that they were bound to Portmadoc. When they arrived there, not having any articles signed, they were discharged. They went to the Sailor's Home Inn. Portmadoc, and were talking the matter over in the presence of the captain, and were talking about going to Carnarvon, to lodcte a complaint as to the treatment they had received, when afterwards they found that their discharge had been stolen, and also Glover's coat, for which he had paid 35s. in Lon- don. The statement then went on to account for the articles found in the bag, but which we certainly could not understand. Glover accounted for his having the prosecutor's coat on by saying that he had lost his own coat, and it was a very cold day. and as there was a coat by some chance in the bundle, he had put it on temporarily. The JUDGE then summed up, in his IIsual impartial wav, and remarked it was probaMe that the prisoners felt some exasperation against the ship, and the captain but if such were the case. and they had a just, reason for feeling so, still they were not justified in indemnifying themselves in that way. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Glover then said it was a strange thing that his coat should have been stolen out of the vessel just on the day they were leaving it; and if they were thievei (which he denied), there must have been other thieves in the vessel as well. His LORDSHIP, in passing sentence, took a very lenient view of the case, and sentenced them each to 1 mouth's imprisonment. ASSAULT, WITH INT"T, AT CARNARVON. John Jones, 40, butcher, Carnarvon, was charged with assault with intent to ravish Margaret Hughes, at Car- narvon, in August, 1864. The grand jury in this case returned a "X o True Bill," on the ground that the prosecutrix did not appear. Mr. Morgan Lloyd informed his Lordship that the prosecutrix, Margaret Hughes, was not in court, and that the police had sent a car for her. The case was then allowed to stand over for a time; when his Lordship directed that the prisoner should be kept in prison until the next assizes, in order that the charge may be then proceeded with. MALICIOUS WOUNDINO AT ABERDARON. Evan Williamt, 31, joiner, was indicted for unlawfully and maliciouslv wounding with intent, to kill, or to do grievous borlily harm, one William Evans, blacksmith, in the parish of Aberdaron, on the 2nd of February last. Mr. Morgan Lloyd appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Mclntyre for the prisoner. The prisoner having surrendered to his bail, Mr. Morgan Lloyd proceeded to state the particulars of the charge. The prosecutor, William Evans, was a joiner, and lived in the neighbourhood of Aberdaron; whilst the prisoner was a blacksmith from the same locality. On the 2nd of February last, the prosecutor went to A berdaron, and had two or three glasses of ale. On his return home, at night, he decided to go and pay a visit to a young woman named Mary Price, according to the custom which it seemed prevailed in that part of t'le country. The pr ife 'utor, howeve", had not an exact idea of which was the house of Mary Price, as it was somewhat dark at the time, and in mistake he went to the house of the prisoner instead of that of the girl. He appears to have knocked gently at the window, and presently he heard a noise in the house, and a person opened the door, without saying a word. Taking it to he his Mary, as a matter of course, he walked into the house; but in an instant he was hit or. the head with some sharp instrument, and he fell, stunned, upon the ground, so that he was nearly insensible. The pro- secutor would not be able to state very clearly what took place after this, and his account would be somewhat indefinite. The prisoner continued to strike him with some sharp instrument, so that he inflicted no less than 8 wounds upon him. When the prisoner discovered who he was, and that he had been hitting away at a neighbour whom he knew well, he went to Thomas Ellis's, who lived close bv, and Evans was then removed to his house, and a druggist was sent for, who dressed his wounds. A doctor from Nevin afterwards attended him, and he was under his hands still. The learned counsel went on to say that he did not believe that the prisoner knew whom he was attacking at the time; but it was a most cruel thing to attack any man in that way, with a deadly weapon, which might have caused instant death, and without learning who he was or what he wanted. He was charged in the indictment with ma- liciouslv wounding with an intent to kill, or to do griev- ous bodily harm and it would be for the jury to say whether the evidence would bear out the indictment. He must tell them, however, that it made no difference, under the circumstances, whether the prisoner knew the man he was attacking or not, for using such a wea- pon as he appeared to have done, was clearly an unlaw. ful act, unless an attempt had been made to break into the house. The learned counsel then called William Evans who said —I am a smith, and live in the neighbourhood of Aberdaron. The prisoner, Evan Williams, live* not far from me—about a mile and a half I should say. On the 2nd of February last I went to the village of Aberdaron, and I stopped thereuntil between 9 and 10 o'clock at night, I had several glasses of Ille there, I was not drunk—I could walk as well as any one. (Laughter.) I passed by my own home, as my intention was to wo on to Tynlon where Mary Price lived. Instead of going there I went to Evan Williams's house, by mistake. It was then between 11 and 12 o'clock at night. I knocked at the window, as I ex- pected to be allowed to speak to the female. I heard the bolt of the door being unbarred. When the door was opened, I stooped down my head to go through the door into the house, when I received a heavy blow on my head. I felt mrself becoming partially insensible. I was struck eight titnes, but I cant say with what, nor did I know then, who it was who struck me. I first knew Evan Williams, after he had come in with a neighbour, Mr. Ellis. The prisoner said he would not for the world have done such a thing. This was said after Ellis had come into the house. I have not a very clear recollection of what took place for some time. When he was cutting me, I called out, when the prisoner said Dear me, Will! Is that you!" I knew him very well as I was used to speak to him for years. For my- self, I could not tell whose voice it was, as I was almost insensible. When Ellis came in, my wounds were dressed. A candle had been lit, as it was dark. When I came to myself I saw the prisoner, his wife, and Thos. Ellis in the house. By Mr. Meliltvre- k man accompanied me from Aberdaron nearly to my own house. I really cannot say how many glasses of ale I h id that evening. I kept no account. I left home about 3 o'clock in the evening. It is about two miles from our house to Aberdaron. I 1 joked at the clock in Aberdaron before I left. I re- side not very far from the prisoner's house His house is between my home and Tynlon. His house fronts the road. The house I intended going to, has its gable end to the road. When I went to the prisoner's house. I tapped at the window. I dont know whether or not the door opens into the bed chamber, as I was never there before. I did not speak before I went into the house. No one said to me take care of yourself, man." No one uttered a word. I cant say whether a woman inside screamed or not, but I heard some noise. The prisoner and I had always been on good terms before this hap- pene(I-always friends; leant state whether the prisoner was dressed or not when he came in with Ellis I think he had only his shirt and trowsers on, but I cant say what he had upon his feet. Thomas Ellia-I am a neighbour of Evan Williams s, and am a farmer. I remember Evan Williams coming to my house on the morning of the 3rd of February. I had gone to bed. He said, come with me, some bold and bad man is in our house, yonder. He said nothing more and went away, and I followed as soon as I could dress myself. The first thing I saw in the house was Williams sitting upon a chair. He was holding his head down between his hands, and I could not tell whether he was asleep or insensible. There was blood about him. He came to himself in a short time. The prisoner said—" Dear Thomas, it is Will Evans, the blacksmith!" I cannot say who spoke then—everybody seemed to be speaking after that. The two parties told me what had occurred. The prisoner said that he thought a bad man was coming into the house, and he had struck him with the implement. The prisoner said he would not have done it for anything in the world. The prisoner fetched a druggist-No I it was a neigh- bour who went for him. By Mr. Mclntyre The prisoner is a delicate man— he has always been so. He has nearly lost the use of one side. He appeared to be very much frightened when I first went into the house, as did also his wife. I beard her screaming when I got near to the house. There are two rooms in the house-parted by a parti- tion but there is no door between them. P.C. Owen Price-I was called on the morning of the 4th of February to go to the prisoner's house. The clothes which I now produce, I had from the father of the prosecutor. (The clothes were very dirty, and there were cuts in the left sleeve, some inches in width). I found the adze (produced) in the house of the prisoner. There was blood upon it. I found it under the table where he usually works. Mr. Griffith deposed to having been called to attend the prisoner at the house of Mr. Ellis, and he dressed bis wounds, he said, as well as he could. This took place about 3 o'clock in the morning. J. S. Hughes, Esq., Nevin-I attended the prosecutor the first time on Sunday, the 5th of February. He had eight wounds upon him He had one on the right side of the head, two inches long, but it was not very deep. He had three on the left shoulder, done with some sharp instrument. They were about 2i inches long and half an inch deep. The witness then described the remain- der of the wounds in detail, some of which were worse than those described above. He then went on to say- the wounds have all healed up, but he (the prosecutor) cant as yet, use his shoulder. I dont think he will be quite right under twelve months. None of the wounds were dangerous to life. They must have been done by some sharp instrument. By. Mr. Mclntyre—Had the blow upon the head been struck by a strong man, it would have been much more serious, and might have broken his skull. Mr. Mclntyre then addressed the jury for the defence. The prisoner, he said, was charged with the very serious crime of feloniously wounding William Evans, with an intention to murder; and also with inflicting grievous bodily harm upon the prosecutor, Wm Evans. Now, did the facts of the case as given in evidence in the court substantiate such a charge as that ? What were the facts as stated to them ? Why, that the prosecutor left his home at 3 o'clock in the evening and went to a public house at the village of Aberdaron, and remained there drinking until 12 o'clock at night. He then starts home; but instead of going home he passes it by and goes to see a girl, named Mary Price, which girl lie was not keeping company with, nor did she know he wascoming. This sort of courtshipwas said by mylearned friend to be a custom in that part of the country; but if so, it was a custom "more honoured in the breach than the performance"—men prowling about one's house at midnight in order to keep the servant girls from theii re-it. Well, but the prosecutor was so drunk that he did not go to Ty'nlon, although it was not very far from his own home, but he mistakes the house, and goes to the house of the prisoner, who was in bed with his wife. Now, that the prisoner was drunk and did not know what he was about was clear from this—the prisoner's house fronts the road, whilst Mary Price's house has the gable end towards the road so that no man unless he were drunk could possibly have mistaken one for the other. When he got to the prisoner's house, it was after midnight, and the night was dark, and he raps at the window. The prisoner and his wife hearing this became frightened, and very naturally, because there was no girl in the house for anyone to court, and they concluded that the party was there for a bad purpose. When the prisoner opened the door the prosecutor walked in without saying one word, and then he was attacked by the prisoner in self defence. He would ask the jury was not that what almost every man would have done under the circumstances—the middle of the night, and in a lonely place, with no possible object for any person to call there in such a manner, and at such a time? There was no "intent" to murder evinced, nor any intention to do "grievous bodily harm," but the ob- ject was to prevent the man from coming into the pri- soner's bedroom, where he and his wife were undressed and in bed. That there was no malice was clear from this, that the parties were then, and had al ways been, on the best terms—they were friends in fact; and from the evidence of all the witnesses, the grief and sor- row of the prisoner were very great when he discovered whom it was that he had hit. It had not been proved that the adze was used by the prisoner; and although a great show had been made of the clothes worn by the prosecutor on that night, it was clear from their dirty condition that he must have fallen down on the road; for they could not have been made so dirty, as they were, by his falling upon the floor of the prisoner's house, or from being taken to the house of Thomas Ellis. The charge of an assault with intent to murder could not be maintained for a moment, nor yet the charge of wound- ing with the intention of doing grievous bodily harm. He trusted the jury would acquit the prisoner altoge- ther but if they thought him not altogether innocent, that they would bring in the minor verdict of unlaw- fully wounding. The learned JUDGE then summed up most impartially, intimating that it bad not been proved in evidence, clearly, that he had used the adze, which, of itself, would be an unlawful act in such a case. He concluded by saying that the jury would have to decide upon the following points-Did the prisoner feloniously intend to kill and murder W. Evans-or, as he did not personally know him, did he intend to kill and murder somebody ? secondly, was his intention merely to resist a man whom he thought was attempting to break into his house ? If you think this, and that he was only anxious to de- fend his father and mother-wts he justified in using such a weapon as inflicted the wounds described by the doctor ? fourthly, was he guilty of unlawfully wounding only ? and fifthly, you will say whether you will acquit him. A juror here intimated to his Lordship that the prison- er had no father and mother in the house, only his wife. It Iwas the prosecutor who had father and mother. His LORDSHIP—Well, I suppose I was in error, and probably none of the gentlemen here would have made such a mistake. It was caused by my inability to dis- tinguish at a glance Evan Williams and William Evans. (Much laughter, in which his Lordship joined.) The jury brought in a verdict of "Unlawful wound- ing," the Foreman remarking that they had reduced the crime as low as they could, short of acquittal. Sentence was deferred until Tuesday, when he was ordered to be imprisoned 9 calendar months, with hard labour. His Lordship, in passing sentence, said that although he had refrained from prejudicing the minds of the jury on the previous day by expressing any opinion as to whether he used the adze or not, he must say that he in his own mind believed that he did use it; and it was necessary to visit the use of such wea- pons with severe punishment. THE POACHING CASE AT LLANFAIRFECHAN. Robert Ilughes, 28, stonemason, and Cvxn Grittth, 27, stonemason, were severally charged with being out in a party of three, armed with guns, and unlawfully enter- ing, and being in pursuit of game, by night, on lands belonging to John Platt, Esq., in the parish of Llan- fairfechan. Mr. Swetenham and Mr. Horatio Lloyd, instructed by Mr. Luck, were for the prosecution; and Mr. M'In tyre, Mr Morgan Lloyd, and Mr. Talbot Smith, in. structed by Mr. M. Louis, Ruthin, defended the pri- soners. Mr. Swetenham asked permission of the Judge that the witnesses should be ordered out of Court until they were called to give evidence. His Lordship declined to accede to the request of the learned counsel. Mr. Swetenham then stated the case to the Jury. On the night of the 15th of December last, David Davies, who is a sergeant of police at Llanfairfechan, was com- ing from Penmaenmawr along the turnpike-road He left Penmaenmawr about 2 o'clock in the morning, and when not far from Llanfair he heard a shot, the sound from which appeared to come from M r. Platt's preserves; aud shortly afterwards he heard another shot. He then went on, and soon saw three men crossing a field be- longing to Mr. Platt, each man carrying a gun. He then went under cover of the hedge, so that the men could not see him When the men got over into the road, he recognized Owen Griffith, and he also knew the prisoner Robert Hughes by his features, though he did not then know his name. He knew them very well, as it was nearly full moon. The prisoners, it would appear, are building a house in that neighbourhood, and Davies saw them very often at their work, and when they were going along the road. He saw a gun in Owen Griffith s hands, and he had also two pheasants under the tail of hie coat Acting in accordance with the powers vested in a police officer by a recent Act, he took the gun frcm Griffith; but when he was trying to obtain possession of the pheasants, a third party came behind him and hit him a blow upon the head, so he did not get them. He then laid hold of the gun which Hughes had, but the stock came away from the barrel, and so he missed that as well. When the third party knocked his hat over his eyes, Davies drew his staff, when all three ran away in different directions. He started after the man whom he thought had hit his hat; but as he had to carry the gun, and the stock, and had also his great coat on, he failed to get up to him. He then threw the gun into a garden, and succeeded in getting to within 20 or 30 yards of the man, when he found out it was Owen Griffith whom he was running after. Griffith went under a bridge and into some out-buildings, when Davies gave up the pursuit, and told him he should find him on the morrow at his work. He would tell the jury that the police officer had not the slightest doubt as to the iden- tity of the prisoners, as he knew them quite well by sight, though he was not acquainted then with their names. After entering into more details of the case (which is given fully in evidence), the learned coun- sel proceeded to observe, he supposed it would not be a poaching case, in Wales, unless an alibi were attempted t) be proved, and it appeared, from what he had been told, it would be so in this case. He would tell them that Mr. Platt had no vindictive feelings against the prisoners, and he would wish them to be punished as little as possible even if they were found guilty of the offence with which they stood charged. Still, he had property in Llanfairfechan, and he wished to preserve his game, and it was, therefore, only just that he should defend his own rights. The learned Counsel then called David Davies, who was examined by Mr. H. Lloyd. He. said-I am a police sergeant, stationed at Llanfair- fechan. I was on duty on the night of the 14th of De- cember last, and was returning from Penmaenmawr to Llanfair. I heard the report of a gun; the sound came from the direction of Madryn-a farm belonging to Mr. Platt. I was then in the turnpike-road, near to the Lodge. I saw three men crossing the field, and each man was carrying a gun. They were coming in the di- rection of Llanfairfechan, where I was. I concealed myself by retiring behind the hedge, and by going be- fore them towards the village. I recognised Owen Grif- fith he was in advance of the others about two yards or so I told him I had heard several shots, and seen him coming from Mr. Platt's preserves, and crossing the field. Robert Hughes, the other prisoner, was standing about two yards off. I knew them personally, but did not know their names. I told Griffith I had power, as a policeman, to seize his gun, when he said he hadn t one I then pointed out his gun, which he had hid un- der his coat. I laid hold of the gun; I likewise said he had got pheasants, too. He did not say anything to that. I was going to take the pheasants; but Robert Fughes came up, and looked as if he was going to strike me. I then took hold of his gun barrel with one hand, and the two pheasants with the other. I was then struck on the head from behind, my hat being knocked over my eyes. I dropped the gun and pheasants, and took out my staff, when the three parties ran away-two towards the village and the other in another direction. I ran after the one, and tried to catch him. He ran under a bridge, and amongst some detached houses. I then shouted to him, and told him I should see him in the morning. He is building a house, for himself, at Llan- fairfechan. I saw nothing more of them that night. I went to the said house the next morning, between nine and ten o'clock, but Owen Griffith was cot there. I met his landlord next (Mr. Roberts), and went to his house, where Griffith lodges. I did not before then know where he did lodge. I was shewn into his bedroom by Mrs. Roberts, the landlord's wife. I saw gunpowder spread over the dressing-table, and some shot upon the floor. I saw the gamekeeper take hold of a coat, and there were some pheasants' feathers in the lining of it. The feathers (two in number) I now produce. His Lordsliip-tletter take care of those. (Laugh- ter.) Witness continued—I left Griffith's gun in a garden when I was running after him, and the stock of Hughes's gun as well. I saw the keeper withdraw the charge out of Griffith's gun, both shot and powder. Griffith came to his lodgings whilst we were there. I asked him about the coat, when he said he had not worn it for many months. I likewise asked him about the shot and pow- der, when he replied he had a particular purpose for them. I used to see Robert Hughes on the road. I knew he worked somewhere at Pentreheilin. I after- wards ascertained his name, and where he lived. I went that day to where Hughes worked, which is not far from Llanfairfechan. I met him on the 4th of January. I compared the shot I found in Griffith's room with that abstracted from his gun, and I think they are the same kind of shot, but I am not certain of it. By Mr. M'lntyre—I found out where Hughes work- ed on the 27th of December. He is a builder. I went to the house which he is building that was the only spot I used to go to look for him. Yes, sir, that state- ment is correct, only that you don't understand it (great laughter). I was at the Petty Sessions in Bangor when Griffith was committed for trial. Hughes then offered himself as bail for Griffith, but Mr. Luck objected to it because he (Hughes) was not a householder. I don't know much about it-I won't swear. I came to Llan- fairfechan in October last There is a great deal of build- ing going on there, and hundreds of builders (working mechanics?) are employed. When I passed Hughes, I used to ask him how he was," or something of that kind. I can't say when I saw him, or where, nor how he was dressed at any particular time. I used to see him going backwards and forwards to where he worked. He was always dressed the same way as he is now. I won't venture to swear I had seen him or spoken to him during either a week or a fortnight previous to the 15th of December last. On the night in question, when I was near Penmaenmawr, I had a conference" with another police officer (great laughter, caused by the wit- ness using the word conference"). When I first saw the men crossing the field, I was from 200 to 300 yards off. I did not see the guns then, but I saw them when the men came a little nearer. They carried their guns sideways. (The witness here shewed how they held them.) When they came out of the field into the road they were from 400 to 500 yards from my house. Hughes was carrying his gun with his two hands! Grif- fith was close by, doing nothing at all. The stock of Hughes's gun came away in my hand. I held the other gun between my legs when'I was pulling at Hughes's gun. The third man was not then in front—he had come behind me somehow. I did not see him come up at all. The whole affair did not, last very long. I had gone some 20 or 30 yards before I found out I was run- ning after the wrong man. Don't know who he was. I met the prisoner Hughes near to the chapel in Llanfair- fechan. Did not ask him his name. I went to a man about his having a double-barrelled gun—I asked him hai lie one ? Did not say to him that I wanted the other portion of the gun, one part of which I had taken from him the night before. Nothing of the kind. I will swear I did not. The man's name was William Jones. There was another man standing by at the time. I never went to the prisoner Hughes's odgings at all but I went to his mother's house after I had received a warrant to apprehend him. I had known Griffith from seeing him at his work, and I had spoken to him dozens of times. On the night of the 14th he had a Jim Crow hat on, with two pieces of tape around it. I thought I had no power to take Griffith's coat. Re-examined by Mr. Swetenham— The coat in question was hanging to the foot of the bed. There was only one bed in the room. I described the prisoners to Mr. Luck the next morning. I knew where Hughes lodged—at his mother's. Pentreheylin is a place where there are several houses, and was not one spot." I am certain that it was Owen Griffith and Robert Hughes whom I saw in Mr. Platt's field. P. C. Win. Roberts, deposed to going with Sergeant Davies to Griffith's lodgings on the morning of the 15th December, and was present with him in the prisoner's bed soom. This witness merely corroborated the evi- dence given by Sergeant Davies. Charles Fendrick, keeper-went to Mr. Robert's house on the loth December with the policeman. I took shot from out of the pocket of O. Griffith, and else drew the charge out of his gun. They correspond exactly. There are two sorts in each, if not more. They are Nos. 3 and 4 I should say. (Shot handed in). Saw some pheasants' feathers under the bed, and also some in the prisoner's coat. There was biood under the bed and one of the feathers wasdn it. Dont remember O. Griffith saying anything about his coat. M r. Mclntyre, and others, having examined the sample of shots, asked the keeper whether he did not think one was of a larger size than another, when he replied that he did not-he believed they were the same. P.C. Roberts re-called—When Griffith asked who had given the police authority to go and search his room, Sergeant Davies replied that the landlord had done so. Mr. Swetenham said this was the case for the prose- cution. Mr. Mclntyre rose and addressed the jury for the de- fence and particularly in defence of the prisoner Hughes. The offence he said, with which the prisoners were charged was a serious one, and if proved against them would be visited with severe punishment; but this con- sideration should not prevent them from doing their duty, and from finding them guilty if the evidence should warrant it. The learned Coun- sel then, with much eloquence and at consider- able length criticised the evidence of the police- man Davies, and contended that his evidence was not to be relied upon, even supposing that he had not wilfully misrepresented facts, and distorted the truth. He told the Jury that he had spoken to the prisoners doz 'ns of times—he having been at Llanfairfechan only since October last-that is scarcely three months before the alleged offence was committed and yet when pres- sed upon the point he admitted that he could not swear he had spoken to Robert Hughes for a week nor even a fortnight before the said 15th December. More than this he could not say when nor where he had even spoken to him at all, nor what thoy had ever talked about. Now if this were true it was very extraordinary. He said, moreover, that he had never gone to Hughes house, but that when he wished to find him he always waited at some spot" called Pentrehelin. Now could they really believe that ? The truth was he did not know Hughes at all, nor even where he lodged, for he never lodged in fact where Davies said he did. He had stated that Hughes was always dressed as he was then (in Court) now was it likely that any working man would be dressed always as they saw Hughes dressed then. He then called attention to the fact that when Griffith was brought before the magistrates at Bangor and was committed for trial on a charge of poaching, Hughes was there and offered bail, and Serg. Davies was also there, and did not known him. If he did not know him by day-light in Bangor after the said poaching affair, how was it possible that he could know him on the nigh'. of the 14th of December ? The truth was, Serjeant Davies was entirely mistaken as to the identity of the man, and this he could prove by a number of witnesses. He should prove that on the very night he was said to be poaching at Llanfairfechan he was in his own bed with another party and the same would be proved as it regard- ed the prisoner Griffith. He should also prove that so far from the policeman suspecting or knowing Hughes, as he said he did, he actually went the next morning to a man called Wm. Jones, and charged him with being the person of whom he had taken the stock of the gun the night before, and threatened to take him before the magistrates for the offence. There was this to be said in relation to the evidence for the prosecution and the defence-the policeman might be mistaken; whilst the witnesses for the defence could not possibly be so, as they all personally knew the prisoners. The learned Counsel, before calling his witnesses, drew the attention of the Jury to the position of Griffith. Hughes was a man in a better position than Griffith, and consequently had it in his power to bring forward more persons to speak in his behalf; but he hoped that this fact would not be allowed to influence their verdict, as the policeman had evidently made a mistake as to the identity of both the prisoners. Rd. -Williams, examined by Mr. Morgan Lloyd—I lodge at the house of Mr. Ed. Roberts, who keeps a public-house in Llanfairfechan and in the beginning of the month of December last, Owen Griffith was lodging in the same house. I remember the day when the po- lice came there. I bad slept in the house the night be- fore. O. Griffith and I slept on the same landing, but not on the same lfoor. I was unwell at the time and had to take medicine every three hours. I had to take medicine on the night of the 14th of December. I went to bed about 11 o'clock. We went up to our rooms at the same time. I went with him into his room. I then went to my own room, but I did not go to bed at once as I was to take medicine at 12 o'clock. There was only one candle between us both; and I took it into my room and occupied my time in reading O. Griffith never left his room. I had to take medicine at 3 o'clock and I went into his room to see what time it was, as he had a watch hanging up, and it was then exactly half-past 2 o'clock. Griffith was then in bed. I spoke to him and. said, "are you asleep ?" but he made no answer. In the morning I saw him at his breakfast. I myself rose at 6 o'clock and he was there then. This witness in cross-examination by Mr. Swetenham, said that he always went to look at the watch when he took his medicine, and likewise asked the prisoner was he asleep ?" This statement Aused a good deal of laughter in court. Edward Roberts, at whose house the prisoner Griffith lodged, was next called, and the substance of his evi- dence was as followsOn the night in question, the last witness and the prisoner Griffith went to bed at the same time, that is about 11 o'clock. He left them in the kitchen when he went out to feed the horses, and when he returned they had gone to bed. In fact, he went into Griffith's room when he went upstairs. He locked the front door himself and the back door, and put the keys of both in his pocket, whilst his wife locked the shop door. The kitchen was fastened down so that no one could go out of the house in an ordinary manner. Mr. Swetenham cross-examined this witness with much astuteness, but failed to shake his evidence. A t this stage of the case the witnesses were very long in coming forward when called, to the evident surprise of the J udge, who enquired the reason of it. Mr. McIntyre said that the police would not allow them to come into court, not even when the solicitor for the defence requested to see them. The police had taken this upon themselves, notwithstanding that he, the Judge, had ordered them to remain in court. His LORDSHIP, who appeared to be greatly annoyed, said-" Let all the witnesses come into court, this is a case of misdemeanour." Mrs. Roberts, wife of Edward Roberts, corroborated her husband's evidence in the most minute particulars, both as it regards the time of their going to bed, the door fastenings, Ac. John Thomas was then called to prove an alibi in the case of Robert Hughes. He said he lived at Penmon, and slept in the same bed as Robert Hughes. Oil the night in question they went to bed together between 10 and 11 o'clock, and the prisoner was there in the moan- ing. He would swear that he was in bed the whole of the night. He also slept with him on the Thursday night following; but on Friday he went to Liverpool and returned upon the Saturday. After he returned from Liverpool a quantity of timber arrived for him from there. After then he was away for a little time. Wm. Willianis-I slept in the same room as the pri- soner R. Hughes that night, but in a separate bed. Saw him going to bed between 10 and 11 o'clock, and saw him getting up in the morning a little before seven o'clock. A.11 certain of this; but won't undertake to swear that he was in bed all night, because I was asleep -in(I not know. Wm. Jones—Sergeant Davies called upon me on the morning of the loth of December, and he asked me to give him the piece of the gun a part of which he had taken from me the night before. I said I had not had a gun in my hands for eight months. He replied it didn't matter what I said, but that he would get a piece of paper for me to be taken before the magistrates. Robert Williams, stonemason, said—I live at Glany- mor. I heard the conversation between Win. Jones and the police-officer, and what Wm. Jones says of it is quite correct. Two or three other witnesses were then examined,— namely, James Hughes, Llanfairfechan, and Robert Owen, who swore that when Sergeant Davies served Robert Hughes with the warrant the Sergeant did not know his name, and therefore did not know him per- sonally until Hughes told him who he was. Mr. Swetenham to James Hughes—If then, Sergeant Davies has said here that he did not ask his name when he served him with the warrant, he has stated what is false 1 James Hughes—Yes, if he said so, it is false. Mr. Swetenham then replied in a very eloquent and ingenious manner, and ridiculed a good deal of the evi- dence tendered for the defence. His LORDSHIP then adjourned the court until 9 o'clock on Tuesday morning. TUESDAY. I This morning the Judge took his seat on the bench precisely at 9 o'clock. The Llanfairfechan poaching case was to have been gone on with but owing to the absent of a juror (R. Jones, of fonway), it had to be postponed for a time, and the following civil case was proceeded with. ACTION FOR GOODS SOLD, MaXEY LENT, &C., AT ABER- DARON. Jones v. Davies.— This was an action to recover by the plaintiff the sum of £ 150, under circumstances which will be given in the opening address of the plain- tiff's counsel. Mr. Mclntyre appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Morgan Lloyd for the defendant, the latter being in- structed by Mr. G. T. Picton Jones, Pwllheli. Mr. Mclntyre, on rising, stated that the case for the plaintiff, whose name was Catherine Jones, and who kept a small shop at Penycaerau, in the parish of Aber- daron, the defendant being Mr. r. Davies, master mariner, a native of Britten, in South Wales, was this. In the year 1863, the defendant came to live in that part of the country, and eventually married the plaintiff's daughter, Jane. It would appear that Davies, under some pre- tence or other, managed to get transferred to himself all that the plaintiff possessed, she having given to him a bill of sale, the contents of which document was never read to her at the time. This occurrence took place on the 14th of February, 1863. The amount was A;300, thereby giving up to him possession of the shop, goods, money accounts, farming stock, &c., the condition being that the plaintiff was to be kept by defendant with board, lodging, &c., as long as she lived. The plaintiff had a mortgage in her own right for £ 400, of which she never told the defendant; the writings of which she kept secretly in a drawer under lock and key, upon which sum a man named Wm. Rowlands paid her in- terest regularly until within two months before it became known to the defendant that the plaintiff was in possession of that amount of property. Davies then went to the said Rowlands, and asked him if he could keep a secret. The defendant then said that he had a bill of sale on all the old woman's property. After this, by some means or other, the defendant managed to extract the mortgage deed from the drawer, and shortly after left with his wife for South Wales. After being remonstrated with for his conduct, he repaid two Bums of money to the plaintiff, namely, 9100, and LOO; leaving a balance due of £150, the amount sued for that action, and to which the- defendant had no ri<■ £ j i The learned counsel then called Catherine Jones, who exid-I used to live at Pfv„ CMrau, in the parish of Aberdaron, and am the p1ai: in this case. The defendant married my daugb" Jane, about two years ago. After they were nMrri?' defendant and his wif? went on a visit to Britten Fe, in South Wales. My daughter returned in abo? month's time. I have five daughteas and one. Had no daughter living with me at the time but tbe8'í' fendant's wife. Defendant came back in about a IIl(J' after my daughter did. He did not live long with  after this, but said he must take his wife away to So !!le Wales. I remonstrated with him, and ended by Bat I would sell him the shop I agreed to do so. ;? afterwards to'd me that he had heard from a per. who lived at Meltham that I had gone bail for my otL children for three times the value of I was Wott, He then said I must sign a deed to prevent those ¡, sons from falling upon him. I did sign it (bill of produced and read oy the clerk of the court). I c'1n; say whether this is the document or not, but the one i signed was drawn out by Mr. O. Owens, of PwlUjj The deed was not read over to me before I signed it. By Mr. Coxon-He did not tell me what th. contents of the deed were. I asked him if were the document we had been speaking before, and he said it was. When I signed the deei did not know it was said that L300 had been paid t, me, by Thomas Davies. Mr. M. Lloyd objected to this evidence. Witness continued—After I signed the deed, Thorn-,s Davies took possession of the house and shop—^where was selling, and sold the stock of the farm and the sb Cannot tell exactly when they were sold, but it was ter I signed the deed. I sold the stock to hira £ 500 but I was to give E300 as a portion to I"; I daughter. He paid me iCI50, I think, before I sign,,) the deed. He never paid me any other sum. He did take to the shop and goods because he had bought tlicM He carried on business for about a year, and then sold all. After he had sold all his property, he left thij part of the country, and went to live in South Before this time I had a mortgage deed in my po,*ti. sion. Mr. John Rowlands paid me inters yearly— £ 15 on L400. I kept the deed in a drawer, a:j kept the key in my pocket. There was another dra, adjoining the one in which the deed was, but this wy not locked. I shewed this deed to Thomas Davies 05 one occasion, and he looked at it for about 3 minutti. Cannot say when this was. Cannot state exactly I last saw the deed. I missed it first in March this time twelvemonth. After this I saw Mr. John Rû", lands. He said something to me, and I returned hon:, Next morning f said something to Mr. Davies's mft After this Davies came to the house. I told him [ wantefl to get my mortgage. He said I never shocU have it. I said I would have it, and if he did not pr; it me I would go to an attorney. Never gave it to hie, and he never asked me for it. Cannot say whether I had the mortgage deed in the drawer after I signed the deed to Thomas Davies. I missed it after I signed the deed. Cross-examined by NJ r. Morgan Lloya-l Met oecoc; surety for my other children, for a rather large amour.; —not so much as £ 1400. It might be for about I arranged to sell all I had to Thomas Davies, aud"e did arrange that Mr. Owens of Pwllheli should draw out a deed to secure the agreement, but only so far as to secure him against certain parties. I was in no da;, ger myself from creditors, as they were the parties themselves to whom I was the surety. I know little vi such arrangements, and did not know anything of a paper being drawn up until Daviesasked me to sign it. I dil not go surety to about three times the amount I vry worth. I was to live with them in the house, and te was to maintain me for the shop and house as reor. Yes; I owed people small sums, and people owed ce. Was carrying on business in the shop myself. His LORDSHIP—Has not the bill of sale bes sold ? Mr. Lloyd—Yes, my lord, it is so. Mr. Mclntyre then read a copy of the will, at that part which bore on the matter in dispute. His LORDSHIP said it appeared to him that the deed was a valid on j. A long discnsVon here took place between tie counsel and his Lordship relating to the will and the bearing of it upon the cause, and as to whether the pro- perty was personal or real property. Mr. Morgan Lloyd submitted that she was not en- titled to the deed, only as the custodian of it, and there- fore the defendant was not a wrong doer in law, as the deed belonged to him. Mr. Mclntyre contended that in any case he couM not take forcible possession of a deed—that certainly could not he right in law. The question is—was the deed obtained by fraud. Mr. M. Lloyd said he had evidence to prove that the deed was actually delivered to the defendant. Mrs. Jones continned-I attended to the business oi of the shop boforo and after my husband's death. The books were mainly kept by the children latterly. This was done before their father's death. It was a very little I wrote in the books myself. I understand but 4 very little English—very little. The books were kept partly in Welsh, and partly in English The bill of sale was not read over by Thomas Davies, and explained ir translated by his wife. Nothing of the kind. The marriage of my daughter took place in April, 1S63. Idii not promise her a fortune before the marriage took place —no one asked me. At this stage of the proceedings the counsel and soli- citors on both sides tried to come to an arrangement; but after confe-ring about a quarter of an hour, Mr. M. Lloyrl informed his Lordship that they could not agree as to terms. His LORDSHIP-Could I be of any assistance to you ? Mr. Mclntyre—Certainly, my lord, and we shall hi much obliged to you. His Lordship and the counsel on both sides then re- tired out of court to reconsider the matter. On their return his Lordsiiip informed the jury that the parties had come to terms amongst themselves, which he thought was fair and just on both sides. On the suggestion of Mr. Mclntyre, a Juror was withdrawn, and the case was closed. THE ro.vcniNQ CASE AT LLANFAIRFECHAN—(Continued.)' During the hearing of the above civil case, the absent juror. Mr. Robert Jones, Conway, arrived in Court, when his Lordship at once asked how it was that he hat kept the Court waiting for au hour ? Was he aware that he had subjected himself to a very heavy pe- nalty ? Mr. Jones replied that he had come with the very first train from Conway. His Lordship said that was no excuse, as he had di- rected the jury to be sure to be present before 9 o'clock in the morning, as the business of the Court was press- ing. Mr. Jones begged his Lordship's pardon, and said he was not very well, as he was suffering from a sore throat; and, in truth, on Monday he had not brought sufficient money in his pocket to permit of hisstayiug in Carnarvon all night. His Lordship—Well, under the circumstances, I snail not allow the irritation which I may feel to influence me, and I shall not fine you, as perhaps I ought to do. At the same time, I would advise you not to act in asimibr manner again, for if you had been before any other Judge you would assuredly have been fined in a penalty of XIO. Mr. Jones was then ordered to take his seat in the jury box, when his Lordship proceeded to sum up the evidence given in the poaching case. He said, the prisoners Owen Griffith and Rt. Hughes were indicted with belonging to a party of three, who were seen poaching at night, armed with guns, on lands belonging to Mr. John Platt, at a village called Llan- fairfechan. Whatever may be thought of the game lairs generally,it must be admitted that the recent Act in reference to parties going out at night, armed with guns, was a most salutary Act, for it made such an Of- fence a misdemeanour, for as they all knew very well such expeditions very often resulted fatally. As to tie ease before them. there could be no doubt whatsoever but what three men were seen out, armed with guns, o the night in question. Whether they believed the pri- soners were really of the party would depend almost eo tirely upon whether they believed the evidence of tl-: policeman, who was the principal and almost the oti:y witness. He may have mistaken the parties, or he m.1) not but though he was evidently a zealous and cou; rageous officer, yet still it was understood by them td that as great a pleasure as it was to a poacher to bric; down a pheasant, a gamekeeper or a police-officer had ai great a pleasure in bringing down a poacher. (Laughter.) fhe learned Judge then read over the chief points in the evidence, and summed up very decidedly in favour ct Hughes. It was clear that the policeman did not know Hughes personally; he saw him at the Bangor Petty Sessions, and passed him by without recognizing or knowing him, and at night time it was very natural fOr a person placed in the policeman's position, and not M having been in the country, to make a mistake. Besides it was quite clear, if the evidence of Wm. Jones, another respectable man, was to be believed, the pohce- man did go the next morning to Wm. Jones, and aske, him for the remaining portion of the gun, the stock ei which he (the policeman) had taken of somebody the night before. In addition to this, two men had swora distinctly that he was in bed all that night. One nM1* slept with him, and swore positively that he went to beel with him, and that he was not out of the room all the night in question. The other man gave what he (the Judge) was disposed to think was the better evidence. This witness slept in the same room, and saw Hugb;" go to bed about 11 o'clock at night; he saw him agalII