The North Wales Chronicle and Advertiser for the Principality

Mrs. S. 'A. Allen's World's Hair Restorer, or Hair Dressing comes before us in improved quality and style all the virtues of the former celebrated three preparations with some valuable additions are now combined in one Bottle, and the price is reduced to Six Shillings. It quickly changes grey or white hair to its natural colour and beauty, inducing new growth, arresting the fall, &c. It imparts to the Hair a rich glossy appearance, and it requires but very few applications to prove all, and more than is stated in this. At the earnest solicitation of many old patrons her XYLOBALSAMUM will still be manufactured same as formerly, but its use with the Restorer is no longer required. The price will remain the same, Three Shillings. Sold by most Chemists, Per- fumers, &c., Principal Office, 266, High Holbom. London

CARNARVONSHIRE SUMMER ASSIZES. The Summer Assizes for the County of Carnarvon, was held in the County Hall, Carnarvon, on Tuesday last, the 23rd instant, before the Right Hon- Lord Chief Baron Sir Fitzroy Kelly, of her Majesty's Court of Exchequer. His Lordship arrived in Carnarvon on Monday, and proceeded to the Royal Hotel, as no suitable private lodgings could be procured by the High-Sheriff. In the afternoon be proceeded in the splendid carriage of the High Sheriff. Abraham Jones Williams, Esq., and pre. ceded by a number of policemen, acting as a bodyguard, in lieu of the old javelin men, to the County Hall, when the Assizes were opened with the customary formali- ties and in the usual way. He then proceeded, escorted as before, to Christ Church, when the services were read by the liev. T. Hardy Richards, Llangian, after which the Assize sermon was preached hy the liev. G. Roberts, Rhiw. On Tuesday, the Court was opened at ten o'clock in the morning, his Lordship taking his seat punctually at that hour. Before the ordinary business of the Court was com- menced, his Lordship made some remarks iurt-ference to suitable lodgings not being provided for the Judges, who are the representatives of her Majesty the Queen. The High-Sheriff had made explanations to him which were satisfactory as far as be was concerned; but he must say that if proper lodgings were not henceforth pro- vided for the Judges, and proper resect shown them as her Majestv's representatives, the Assizes might be removed to another town. (Our readers will remember that this matter was referred to at the last Quarter Sessions, wheu it was explained that the duty of pro- viding lodgings for the Judges belonged to the High- Sheriff for the time being, and not to the Magistrates of the County, as such.) The following gentlemen were then sworn upon THE GRAND JURY. W Bulkeley Hughes, Esit f M.P., foreman f John Platt, Esq, Brynyneuadd, M.P. ftd. Lloyd Edwards, Esq, Nauhorou; David Williams, Deudraeth Castle; K Lloyd Jones Parry, Esq, Aberdunant; Francis W Lloyd Edwards, Esq., Nanhoron; Robert Carreg, Esq., Carreg, Aberdaron; G H Owen, Esq., ylu wleh Owen Evans, Esq., Tynycoed; Johu Mor- gan, Esq., Bank; 0 \Jassey Jones, Esq., Myuydd Ednyfed; George Holman, Esq Carnarvon; Major Vincent Williams, Bangor; Owen Jones, Esq., Castle-square, Carnarvon Llewelyn Trice Picton Jones, Esq, Pwllheli; Edward Wiudus Mathew, Esq., Wern J P De Winton, E,q., Cii-iiarvoii Thomas Turner, Msq., Ilim Brereton; U P Manley, Estj., Brynteg; 0 Griffith, H-q., Cefn Coch; Robfc. IJavieH, Esq., Bodleudeb; Thos. Churchill, Esq., Carnarvon. The Clerk of Arraigns read over her Majesty's pro- clamatiou aguiijSt vice and profaneness. | His Lordship then addressed the Grand Jury, but in so inaudible a voice that where our reporter sat it was impossible to catch the full meaning of two consecutive sentences-the accoustic propertits of the hall being anything but good. His Lordship observed that it was a matter of much gratification to himself to meet with 80 mauy of the gentlemen of Carnarvonshire, and especially to find that there was so small an amount of Crime in the county, there being only two cases for trial on the calendar. This was not only a matter of gratifi- cation to himself, but it must be so to the geutlemen of the Grand Jury themselves and the fact was most creditable to all parties. Such an absence of serious crime could only arise, in a large and busy county like that of Carnarvon, from the gentlemen of influence and position in the County setting a good example in their own conduct, and by their fulfilling their duties as country gentlemen aud it also showed, in his opinion, the gooduess of heart of the great majority of the popu- lation and their respect for the laws. He then referred at considerable length to the two cases for trial, namely that of H.tunah Davies, who was indicted for attempting to murder her child, intimating that mere suspicion without positive facts would not justify them in bringing in a true bill, and he also cautioned them not to allow other suspicions as to what may have become of the prisoner's child to influence them in the cuiisi(teratioii :)f the charge with which she stood indicted. He then re- ferred to the other charge which was that of subol- nation of perjury against Owen Davies aud David Pritchard, of Pwllheli, and entered at length into the law and circumstances of the case. He concluded by again congratulating the Grand Jury on the lightness of the calendar, and the absence of crime, and that too amongst so large and busy a population. STEALING WEARING APPAREL AT CARNARVON. I Enuna Mallery, 22, a domestic servant, and whose case had been transferred from the Quarter Sessions to the Assizes as the prisoner was too ill to be tried when the Quarter Sessions were recently held, pleaded guilty to stealing a quantity of wearing apparel at Carnarvon, and also with sundry other thefts. llis Lordship in sentencing her said that he learned she had beeu in a bad state of health in the gaol, and also that she had been imprisoned for some time, and in consequence he wished to tleal leniently with her. Hoping that her present punishment would be a warning to her to lead an honest life, he should sentence her to two months'im- prisomneut, but without hard labour. Whilst the Grand Jury were engaged in examining the cases brought before them, the Court decided to go on with the CIVIL CASES. Shaw v. Jones.-In this case Mr Thomas Shaw sued for the sum of 1286 6s 8d due by Mr H. LI. Jones, upon a bond which had been executed in 1858. Mr M'lutyre appeared for the plaintiff, lJr Jones con- ducting his own case. Mr Jones informed his Lordship that he should con- duct hi* own caste, but he did so not out of any (liS* respect to the gentlemen of the bar, for had there been any question of law iuvolved he should have availed himself oj the services of a barrister; but there was no question of law, and he was prepared to admit the debt, which was an honest debt, and he had put in an equitable plea solely for the purpose of gain- ing time. The defendant then detailed the circumstances connected with the case, and the cause of his emoai rassments. In order to act as justly as he could he had executed a deed for the equal benefit of all the creditors; but as one of them, and lie being one of the largest creditors, not signing the deed, helhad not been enabled to carry it out. He had proposed to set apart for this creditor the tenth part of his property which amounted to about £ 200 a year, an I as he was then sued for the full amount he had put in an equitable plea in order to gain time. His Lordship intimated that before doing so he should have consulted with the plaintiff and appealed to him. Mr Jones replied that he bad done so, and that the plaintiff did not seem to be against it. lie then pro- ceeded to say that by the law he had no other course to pursue, there was no way in law for him to act other- wise, unless he made himself a bankrupt. Mr Mclotyre said that in 1858 the defendant had executed a deed. lie had promised to set apart £200 of his property to pay his creditors, and he also promised to keep down the interest generally with his creditors. He had not done so; he had not paid the zF200 a year, nor had he kept down the interest as he had promised to do, and now that this action was brought he had put iu an equitable plea. i he Judge said that as the defendant admitted the debt, all he could do was to suggest that the matter be postponed for a month in order to allow time for the defendant to come to some arrangement with his credi- tors. That he thought would be his best thing to do, and he cmill not make any other suggestion, and a month would allow time for negotiation. Alter a remark from Mr Jones in reference to the plaintiff bringing the action, The Juiige remarked that if persons wished to have kindness showed to them they must be prepared toshow kindness to others. As the defendant did not appear to approve of his suggestion, he had nothing left him but to order the payment of the claim of X286 6" 8d. William Thomas v Evans and Oicen.Tijis was a claim for biicks supplied by the plaintiff to the defend- ants for the building of five houses near to the railway station, Carnarvon, during the year 1866. Mr Mclntyre and Mr Morgan Lloyd, instructed by Mr Webb, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr Coxon and Mr Ignatius Williams, instructed by Mr It. D. Williams, appeared for the defendant Owen. Mr h"aU Lloyd opened the pleadings, and Mr Mclntyre stated the case. Mr Mclntyre said that the plaintiff was Mr William Thomas who owned the brickworks at Parkia, and was in I the habit of selling bricks, his son-in-law, Mr Jones, being his manager. The defendant, Evans, was a builder, ¡ but he had allowed judgment to go by default; and the other defendant, Mr Richard Hugh Owen, was I a state merchant and a kind of general dealer in Carnar- I von. In the latter end of February or the begiuing of I March in tast year, 18(j{j, the defendant Mr Owen called upon the plaintiff, Mr Thomas, at his house, and told him that. he was going conjointly with Evans to build five houses near the Railway station, and asked him could he supply him with bricks. lie asked the price of the bricks per thousand, when the plaintiff aid they would be 26s. In consequence of this agreement, the bricks IVHe delivered and nothing particular occurred from tint time to the 23rd of June. Up to that date 63,5\10 bricks had been supplied at different times, which at 26s. per thousand amounted to .t'911 7s (kl. On that day Mr Owen saw Mr Jones, the plaintiffs son-in-law, and on his ascertaining that he had been debited with the bricks as joint partner with Evans, he denied his obligation, and slid it was Evans and not he who was re- sponsible for the payment of them. On that Mr Jones told him that he should supply them with uo more bricks, and asked him to pay for what had already been supplied to them. Mr Owen then promised to pay for the bricks for two houses which Evans was building for him, and to this Mr Jones agreed, saying that from that date he would look after the money for the bricks for the other three houses. Bricks were subsequently sup- plied after that date which made the amount due by Mr Owen zCI56, he being charged only two-fifths of the number supplied after the 23rd of June. Since that time, Evans had failed, and now the defendant Owen denied his joint partnership and refused to pay. He should call witnesses to prove Mr Owen's responsibility, and he trusted he should do so to the satisfaction of the juiy. He then called Mr Wm. Jones, who deposed as follows :— I am son-in-law of the plaintiff, William Thomas, and I manage the Parkia brickworks near this town. The works are owned by my father-in-law. Before February, I 1866, we had supplied bricks to each of the defendants. In the month of March or at the latter end of February of last year, I met the defendant, Mr It. Hugh Owen, in High-street, when he told me he had seen my father and had purchased some bricks of him at 26s. pel' thou- sand. I told him I understood that liE. had done so. He asked me when they would be ready, when I told him that it would a good deal depend upon the weather. He then said he was going to build five houses with Mr Evans, and they would require many thousands of bricks. He said he h 'ped we would allow him a good discount, when I told him that we would and that he could pay at his own convenience. I saw Evans afterwards and he told me he was going to build two houses for himself, and one for Mr Scott, the dentist. He asked me if I would supply him with bricks, when I said, yes, I would, but he must first clear off the old account owing, which was about £20, when lie said he would do so. Evans alow said that Mr Owen had told him that he had bar- gained for bricks with my father. He did not say what bricks he had agreed for. baw Uweu alter t-nis, wnen ne said they wanted the bricks t go on wi,Nt<i the bricks were conseqtefntly sent. w Witness here requested to be allowed to give his. evidence in Welsh, which was agreed to. Witness continued—The exact words used by Mr Owen were "We are ready, and we wish to have a boat- full as goon a* possible." I saw Owen more than once before the bricks were delivered, when he asked me when they would be ready ? NVe began to deliver theiii on the 30th of y, ISb6. The houses were near the Railway station on the Bangor Road. The bricks were sent in boats to the beach opposite the houses. Up to the 23rd of June, the number of bricks delivered was 69,500. Did not know what the priroe of them was, as my father-in-law had made the bargain, but they were worth 26s. a thousand. At that price they came to £ 90 7s. Od. On the 23rd of June, I saw Mr Owen again. He cAlled upon me in the yard. and asked me if I was booking the bricks in his name ? I told him I had done so since they were first being delivered. lly exact words were I havo your name in the books be. cause I was delivering to you." He replied, don t do that again. He also stated that he had agreed with Evans to build him two houses. To this I answered- very well, I shall stop supplying you, and you will pay me for what has already been delivered, I also said that Evans was too much of a stranger for me to triiit him unless he, Nir Oweii, would go bail for him. Mr Owen, replied that if Evans was too much of a stranger for us to trust him he was too much of a stranger for him to bail. I answered, very well then, I slian't stip- ply you with any more bricks. He then observed that rather than lose the bricks he'd be answerable for those supplied tor his own two houses. After that I went on supplying bricks as before. The whole number of bricks supplied to the five houses was 195,000 of which num- ber 127,500 was sent after the 23rd of June, aud of this latter number only two-fifths were charged to Mr Owen. The amount claimed therefore from Mr Owen, was £ 90 7s. ad. for bricks supplied before the 23rd of June for which Mr Owen and Mr Evans were joint partners and £66 6s. Od. for bricks supplied to Mr Owen from the 23rd of June to the 1st of December on his own separate account amounting in all to t 156 13s. Od. Mr Coxon—We don't, my Lord, dispute the ac- count; what we sav is that we are not liable for any of the bricks, as Mr Owens was not in partnership with Evans, but he only employed him to build his two houses and for which there was a contract between them. As to the number of bricks supplied to Mi Owen after the 23rd of June, there was no separate ac- count kept, and how could the plaintiff say how many were supplied to his client's two houses, as the size of the houses may differ ? Witness, cross-examined by Mr Coxon :—I know the two houses built by Mr Owen; but I cau't say what the size of them is. The accounts were kept by me, and I made an entry of what was delivered in the book now produced. The book was then handed to Mr Coxon at his re- quest. Witness continued—I made the entries in the book at the time the bricks were sent off. Every item was entered from the 30th of May to the 1st of December; I will swear, and do swear to that. Mr Coxon then handed the book to the Jury and called their attention to the entries which he said were written in such a way as if they were done all at once, as the ink and the writing were the same nearly all throughout, which he maintained could not be the case, if each entry had been made separately, when the bricks were de- livered. Witness—Mr Owen did not say to me that he was going to buildatwo houses, namely two for Evans, two for himself, and one for Mr Scott. I could not deviate one from another. I did not consider that Mr Owen was alluding to his own two hou.-es solely-I looked upon it in another light, that Mr Owen was building two houses for himself, and two houses for Mr Evans, and one for Mr Scott, conjointly with Mr Evans. When Mr Owen mentioned houses, I asked who they were for, meaning thereby the houses. I first sent in my account some- time during the latter part tof July. I sent it to Mr Evans. I sent no written account to Mr Owen. The entries inthe book were made in the joint names of Mr Owen and Mr Evans. The account rendered to Mr Evans was headed—"Wm. Evans, bought of William Thomas," who is the plaintiff. Up to the 14th of November the bricks supplied were 188,600, the total number being 197,000. I sent in an account to Mr Owen about six weeks ago, that was sometime after Evans had became insolvent. The reason why the account was not made to Messrs Owen and Evans conjointly, was because I did not know how to do it, as I did not know what bricks had been supplied to each separately after the 23rd of June. My father suggested that the account had better be sent to Evans, because of the said difficulty, and added that the pal ties knew what bricks they had us d, each, better IthCln he (the plaintiff) did; and if they required a separate account they could then be made out. Mr Mclntyre then explained to the Jury the order of the entries (on account of a remark made by Mr Colon) and called their attention to the fact that the names of the parties dealing with the plaintiff were entered according to the alphabetical order of their christian names, with the exception of the" Lord8" which were put on the top of a page under the letter" L." (Laughter.) The plaintiff, William Thomas, was next called and was examined in Welsh by Mr Morgan Lloyd. He said :—1 am the plaintiff in this case, and own the brick works at Parkia, near Carnarvon. I recollect seeing Mr Owen in the latter end of the month of February —he came to me on the street. He asked me if I had any bricks on hand, when I replied that I had not very many then. lie then asked when we should be com- mencing work as he should want a great many and lie asked me also what the price would be that season, and he also said that he should expect a good discount. I replied I would allow good discount for ready money; but he stated he wanted them on credit. I then said-- Mr Owen, we will do the same as we did before, and you shall have the same discount; but I added that the discount would depend upon the length of time that credit was given. 1 saw Mr Owen again in the com- mencement of the month of June. lie then stated that we had sent him very good biicks, and then asked wh,fn the other furnace would be ready ? I knew then that the names of both Mr Owen and Mr Evans were entered jointly in the books for the bricks. I have seen Mr Owen at the place when the bricks were de- livered, and when they were being unloaded out of the boats opposite to the houses. The houses were built in one row, and all together. I have seen Mr Owen and have asked him personally for payment, but we Jid not send in any written account, I remember asking him for payment on the night of the Winter fair (December 5th.) He then replied You dont expect me to pay, do you? Why, dear me, I've paid Evans f40 more than what I owe him He added that he was only re- sponsible for the two houses, and asked me to make out my bill for the two only It was I that told my son-in-law to make out the account to Evans only, as it was very dark" how to do it, as we did not know what bricks each had used separately. That was the only reason why we made out the account to Mr Evans. By Mr Coxon-After thc 23rd of June Mr Owen said he was only liable for two of the houses, and not for five, I gave no orders after that date to keep a separate ac- count of the bricks supplied to each. There was no occasion to do so, as the houses were all of the same size. I saw Evans some time in the latter end of Sep- tember or the beginning of October of last year, and then he pii, I in o X 2 0. I complained that the account was becoming too heavy. Owens did nut say to me that he would get Mr Owen to become bail for him. I am sure he did not say so, and 1 don't care if he is present, as I am telling the truth. • Mr Coxon then produced the deed of assignment exe- cuted by Mr Evans for the equal benefit of bis creditors. Witness— Yes. I signed this deed, it is dated the 29th of January, and I am one of the Trustees. I don t know much of its contents, but my son-in-law read it over and told me that I could safely sign it, and I did. I never saw the list of the ifgures (on a separate sheet of paper). I signed it because it had nothing to do with the agree- ment I had made with Mr Owen. Don't know that the defendant's (Mr Owen) name was put down for £ 172. We did not sent in the account to Mr Owen before the deed was signed, only I had asked him personally to pay it. No bill was sent to Mr Owen after the houses were finished; this was soon after the 5th of December. Don t recollect sending my son-in-law to look over a contract made between Mr Owen and Mr Evans. Certainly don t recollect doing so, nor do I recollect Jonessaying that he ever saw such a'contract, if there was one. The first attorney I went to was Mr Turner, but he would have nothing to do with it. I then went to Nl r Webb. By Mr Mclntyre—Mr Turner is Mr Owen s attorney, and he has been in the habit of acting for him. When I signed the deed of assignment no paper was shewn to me with figures upon it. Mr Jones recalled by Mr Coxou—Mr Owen asked me to go with him to his office to see the contract and the sums he had paid to Evans. (The agreement was here produced by Mr Coxon). He, Mr Owen, told me that the original agreement was with Mr R. D. Williams but lie shewed me a paper on which were a number of items. I did not say it was all right. I first wrote to Mr Owen after Mr Evans had become a bankrupt. John Roberts then deposed to taking the bricks to the houses in question, and to seeing Mr Owen there occasionally giving directions about them. Mr Coxon for the defence said that he should deny that the defendant. Mr Owen had ever given any order for the bricks, or that he had been a joint partner with Evans. In fact, Evaus had undertaken to build all th £ houses, including two for his client.' It was only after Evans had become a bankrupt that the plaintiff had sent in a bill to Mr Owen, audit was clearly an after thought A u in order that haJniglit not lose nis money. as t,1J t ° client's name being put into the books as joint partner with Evans; it was clear that the entries were not all made separately, but at once, as the Jury would see for themselves. If Mr Owen had been a joint partner, how was it that the bill had been sent to Evans, and toEvan? only ? That was a proceeding which was very cowSgKf, when a builder became insolvent to charge a person who owned the houses for the materials of which they were made. Euns was employed by Mr Owen to build his two houses, and he had made an agreeruent with him to that etfect. f His Lordship.said, the contract between the defendant and Evans did not coucsrn the plaintiff, as he had nothing whatever to do with it. "Viie real question was this, did or did not the defendant enter into an agreement for a supply of bricks, and did he order the bricks to be sent ? I he plaintiff and his manager, Mr Jones, stated plainly that he had given such order, and H would be for the defendant to meet that statement. All other questions were irrelevant to the point at issue. Mr Ignatius Williams then called Mr V. Evans for the defence. He said :-1 am one of the defendants in this action. I entered into a contract with Air R. Hugh Owen, to build some houses. H is Lordship remarked that it was a waste of time to take evidence about the contract, Could the witness deny that Mr Owen had given an order to the plaintiff for the bricks ? Witness continued—I remember Mr Jones coming to me before the bricks were supplied to build the houses. I recollect a conversation taking place between Mr Jones and myself. I told him I was going to build five houses—one for Mr Scott, two for Mr Owen, and two for myself. I had before built other houses near there I owed Mr Thomas about X20 for bricks before. He re- fused to supply me with bricks until the old account was paid off. ■ In September I had another conversation with Mr Jones, but I caunot recollect the particulars of what was said. Don't recollect anything being said about Mr Owen becoming bail for me. I do remember Mr Jones saying that the bill was becoming very large, and he said it was time it should be reduced as it was getting too large. This was said when I was paying him £ 2(1. I said I could get bail, and I named Mr Owen. He remarked it was their way of doing business to tell people plainly when it was time for them to pay their accounts. Mr Jones said that he knew Mr Owen, but he did not know but a very little of me. Mr R. Hugh Owen was next examined. He said :-1 keep a slate yard in Carnarvon. In the early part oflast year I was intending to build houses in Bangor-street— two houses. I had previously built houses in the town of Carnarvon, and then I was supplied with bricks by Mr Thomas, the plaintiff. In those instances I myself supplied the bricks and not the builder of the houses. I saw the plaintiff in February of last year, and before the contract with Evans was signed. We had been dealing together, and we had settled our accounts, and were very friendly together. I told him, in a joke, that I was going to build two houses, and I asked him if he would trust me if I required it ? He replied that he would if I wanted credit. I told him I was going to build two houses. 1 did not say that Evans and I were going to build five houses. I never said so on any occasion, either to Mr Thomas or to Mr Jones. Neither of them ever asked me to pay for the bricks, previous to their sending me the letter. The plaintiff never said anything to me about payment for the bricks on the 3rd of December last. I met him once when he was in liquor, and he did then say something about it. I saw Mr Joues on the 23rd of June last, and we may have said something about bricks, but I don't think it was so. I never asked him had he got my name in his books. I did not tell him that I would pay for the bricks for the two houses which Evans was building for me, as it was Evans who had to pay and not myself. I signed a con- tract with Evans to build the houses. By Mr McIntyre-l can only speak a little of English —tipyn bach. (Laughter). (Mr Mclntyre said he was given to understand he was accustomed to speak a good deal of English, but it did'nt much matter). Defendant-I did not hear Mr Jones saying that he'd stop the supply of bricks. He never said so. I was not applied to for payment until I had the letter. I remem- ber Mr Jones and Mr De Winton, calling at my yard. Jones never said that I should have to pay for the bricks. Yes I saw Mr Thomas drunk by the station, and he may have then said something then about payment. Mr Coxon then addressed the Jury and maintained that he had produced evidence sufficient to prove that hss client had not given an order for the bricka, but that Evans was the party who was rtsponsible for the whole of them. That was shewn by the plaintiff himself who had sent the bill to Evans, and only to Mr Owen after Evans had become insolvent. Mr lIlclntyre next addressed the Juryfor the plaintiff, and observed that from the evidence certain facts had been elicited which had not been contradicted by the evidence for the defence, nor had any attempt been made to dispute them. One fact was that bricks had been supplied to the defendant, and it was also true that according to the defendants, no one had ordered them I Mr Evans had not ordered them, for he owed t20 for an old account which he himself admitted, and he also ad. mitted that Mr Jones refused to supply him with any more until he had paid the sum off. Mr Owen, the solvent defendant, denied that he ordered them, either for him- self or for Evans; and still it was a fact that from the 30th of May to the 1st of December 197,000 bricks had been supplied to build five houses, without any order being given for them, and for which one penny had not been received. The plaintiff and Mr Jones had explained the matter, and clearly and plainly enough, aud had stated that Mr Owen had both ordered the slates and had agreed to the price but, then he denied doing so in a way, and Mr Evans himself never pretended that he had either ordered them or agreed to any price. The defend- ants' names had been conjointly entered into the plain- titfs' books as debtors; and as the plaintiff knew Mr Owen to be a solvent person, he had sent his account to Evans, especially after the agreement of the 23rd of June, when Mr Jones had undertaken to look after the money for the bricks for the three houses. lie denied the insinuations of Mr Coxon in reference to the entries, and he should hand the book to the Jury to examine it for themselves. They had faith in Mr Owen aud had Done in Mr Evans, and they natural)- wished to get the money from Evaus as soon as they could. The Judge then summed up the whole case to the Jury. The action he said was for a claim of £ 156 13s, for bricks supplied to the defendant Oweii-joititly iiitti Evans, up to June the 23rd; and to the defendant Uweu, for bricks for two houses from that date to De- cember the 1st; and the question was simply for them to decide, whether, in their opinion, Mr Owen had given au order for the bricks to the plaintiff, for if he had done so, he made hilllseH liable for the payment. On this point nothing could be more plain or straightforward than the evidence of the plaintiff, and he indirectly was corroborated by the evidence of Mr Jones, who seemed to act as his clerk or manager, or something of that kind. If they believed the evidence of the plaintiff aud Mr Jones, there could be no doubt at all in. the matter, for the bricks had been supplied, and some one must have given all order for them, either Evans or Mr Owen, and Evans had not stated in his evidence that he gave any order. He then went through the whole of the evidence, and called attention to the fact that Mr Coxon had not put the question to the defendant point blank, whether lie had given an order to Mr Thomas- Yes, or No. It was a matter he said to be decided by the Jury, and it was for them to say whom they be- lieved, the plaintiff or Mr Owen. for that was the only point which they had to decide upon. The Jury then retired; and when they returned into Court, the Foreman said they had found for the plaintiff for £ 156 las-his claim in full. CHARGE OF ATTEMPTING TO MURDER AT EOLWTSRHOS. Hannah Davies, 32, a servant, was charged with felon- iously and unlawfully attempting to suffocate her male child with intent to murder it, on the 8th of January last, at a farm house in the parish of Eglwysrhos, near Llandudno. Mr Morgan Lloyd appeared for the prosecution, the prisoner being undefended. The prisoner pleaded not guilty to the charge. Mr Lloyd stated the outlines of the charge, which were as follows. The prisoner had lived as a servant with Mrs Fisher for a twelvemonth, but had received a month's notice to leave, which, strange enough to say, expired on the 8th of January last, the day when the murder was said to have been attempted. Between ten and eleven o'clock on the morning of that day, Mrs Fisher saw the prisoner come out of the yard into the kitchen, and she at once saw that something Wall the matter with her, as there was blood upon the floor. The prisoner said there was nothing the matter unusually, when Mrs Fisher told her to go upstairs. After she left, she (i\jrs Fisher) traced blood spots from the kitchen across the yard to the pigstye, into which she entered, when she heard the cries of a child. She could not see the child, but she found a newly born baby hid under the litter, when she took it up and placed it upon some clean straw in an adjoining outhouse. There were seven pigs in the stye, all young ones, without the sow. Mrs Fisher then went in the house, called the prisoner down stairs, took her into the outhouse, and asked her how she could think of leaving her child to be eaten by the pigS ? The prisoner replied that she intended to take it away with her when she left that day. The child was then washed and dressed ( Mrs Fisher supplying the baby clothes), and she also gave her a flannel petticoat to wrap around it. She offered to send her in the shandry to Conway, but the prisoner refused, saying that she could walk well enough. She left a little after eleven o'clock, and Mrs Fisher watched her going along the footpath through the Vaerdre (Degauwy) which, foot- bath led to the Conway river. The child has never been seen since Lhen. The prisoner was next seen in a lodging house in Conway, with a bundle, but there was no living child with her, whatever was in the bundle She felt unwell, and she at once went to bed. oue told the police officer a day or two afterwards, that the child was being nursed by a friend of hers in Flintshire, and, tree of expense but when the officer went there, he could not find it anywhere. The prisoner told a woman afterwards that the child had died in her arms, and that she hal thrown it into the Conway river. He mention- ed these facts as they might tend to explain the pri- soner's motive in putting the child in the litter in the pigstye. lie then called as a witness Mrs Anne Fisher, who detailed all the circumstances of the case, as outlined by Mr M. Lloyd.. A fter Mrs Fisher's evidence had been given, his Lord- ship said he really did not think that it was any use going any further with the case. Whatever suspicion there may be, there was uo evidence to show that the prisoner had attempted to murder the child. She had put it in the pigstye but she had covered it up, and so lightly as not to exclude the air, whilst by pressing the litter close she could have smothered it in a moment. As to her leaving it there for the pigs to eat it, the thought was too horrible to be entertained, for it was most unnatural. It was possible that she put it there to tike away with her when she left, for it must be re- membered that she was leaving that day; and in any case if there was a doubt, they must give her the benefit of it, and a person could not be found guilty upon mere stfepicion. Mr Morgan Lloyd-After what his Lordship has said I shall not call any more witnesses, for they cannot prove more than suspicion. His Lordship then told the Jury that they could give their verdict, as the case would not be further pro- ceeded with. If they had any doubt at all they must acquit the prisoner. The Jury expressed adesire to retire, to consider their verdict. His Lordship—(greatly astonished)—Retire! What do they want to retire for ? They again expressed a wish to retire, and some of them made their way into the retiring room. His Lordship—Well, they can retire to deliberate upon their verdict if they like, if there is any cause for deliberation at all, but he would advise them to keep together whilst they were doing so. This little scene caused a good deal of merriment in the Court, as in substance the Judge had told them to bring in a verdict of not guilty, and before he was aware of their intention to retire, he had said to the prisoner You are discharged." The Jury was sometime over their deliberation, when on their re-appearance in court, His Lordship, addressing them saitl-I have to ac- quaint you that you will have to bring in a verdict of not guilty" against the prisoner, as there is not suffi- cient evidence to convict her. The Jury then returned a verdict of Not Guilty." The prisoner was then discharged with a few words of kind caution from his Lordship. The woman was so weak and unwell that she could not walk from the dock without. the assistance of one of the turnkeys. The Court was then adjourned until Wednesday, at ten o'clock. Barristers in court—Messrs Mclntyre, Morgan Lloyd, Coxon, W. Foulkes, Langton Foulkes Hilton, Iguatius Williams, and Hugh Lloyd Koberts. Solicitors in court—Messrs R. D. Williams, Webb, J. H. Roberts, and Hugh Koberts. Mr Picton Jones, Pwllheli, was also present as Under- Sheriff. WEDNESDAY. His Lordship took his seat upon the bench at ten o'clock. SUBORNATION OF PERJURY. Owen Davies, 22, labourer, and David Pritchard, 50, farmer, were jointly indicted for having unlawfully and maliciously committed subornation of perjury in a certain prosecution against the prisoner Owen Davies, at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions. Mr Morgan Lloyd prosecuted, and Mr Mclntyre de- fended the prisoners. It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner Davies and one Richard Lloyd, had been engaged in mowing bay at (iwyufryn, in the summer of 1866; a dispute arose, in the course of which Davies cut Lloyd with his scythe, for which offence Davies was commit- ted for trial at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions. In the meantime, Lloyd had been tampered with by the prisoners, and lie received £3 to swear falsely that the cut by the scythe was the result of an accident; the result of which was that Davies was acquitted of the charge. For this perjury Lloyd was tried at the last Spring Assizes, convicted of the offence, and sen- tenced to six months' imprisonment. The two prisoners now indicted were apprehended for subornation of per- jury, the chief evidence against them being a deposition made by Hichard Lloyd. Lloyd had died while under- going his sentence, and his deposition before the magis- trates was produced. Also a document signed by Hichard Lloyd, and acknowledging that he had received from the prisoner Owen Davies £ 3, as compensation or agreement about the dispute that has been between us." After opening the case to the Jury, and by the advice of the learned Judge, I r Morgan Lloyd withdrew the charge of subornatiou of perjury, and proceeded on the minor charge of conspiracy to prevent Richard Lloyd from attending the Michaelmas Sessions at Carnarvon, to give evidence against the prisoner Owen Davies. After hearing the arguments of Counsel on both sides, his Lordship directed the jury to acquit the pri- soners. The learned Judge, addressing the prisoners, anim- adverted on the enormity of the offence with which they had been charged, and said that had they been convicted of it, he should have felt it his duty to pass a very severe sentence upon them. The prisoners were then discharged. This case concluded the business of the assizes, and the court rose at half-past eleven o'clock.

ABERYSTWITII. An adjourned meeting of the Commissioners for cleaning and regulating the town of Aberystwith, was held at the Town Hall,—R. Roberts, Esq., Mayor, in the chair, wht'n it was resolved that the question of making or forming a pond or additional small reservoir at the lower end of the ravine, below the reservoir, be postponed for the present. PETTY SESSIONS, July 23rd.—Before R. Roberts, Esq., Mayor, and Thomas Jones, Esq. Drunk and Riotous.- An(Irew Riddell was charged by P.S. Thomas with being drunk and riotous, near the Town clock, on the morning of Sunday last, about ten o'clock. The prisoner was fined 5s., including costs,—which was paid. Obstructing St. Jnmcs's Squarc.P.S. Thomas charged William Owen with having on the 15th inst., allowed a load of firewood to be discharged in James s Square, and allowing the same to remain there till the following day. It appeared that the defendant's wife had before been warned. Fined Is 6d, including costs. Obstructing the Thoroughfare.—Two different parties were charged and fined for this offence. ,Issault.-Williain Evans charged Jenkin Hughes with having assaulted him. Complainant sworn said-On Wednesday evening last the defendant was on my field trespassing when I I I requested him to leave he struck me in the face. ) Fined 5s, including costs.

I MONTGOMERYSHIRE ASSIZES. The commission of assize for this county was opened on Tuesday, the 16th inst., at Newtown, by the Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer, Sir Fitzroy Kelly. His lordship arrived in Newtown about four o'clock, and was met at the station by the High Sheriff, D. Howell, Esq., of Dolgnog, Machynlleth, and other officials. He I proceeded at once to the Assembly-room, and the court was opened in the usual, form. The procession then re-formed and proceeded to church, where the evening service was read in an appropriate manner by the worthy rector of the parish, the Rev. J. Ed wardp, and a most appropriate discourse was delivered by the Sheriff's Chaplain, the Rev. John Jones, B.A, founded upon the words of the Apostle Paul, in the 3rd chapter of his Epistle to Titus, and the 1st verse Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magi- strates, to be ready to every good work," &c. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. The trials of prisoners commenced ou Wednesday morn- iug, the Lord Chief Baron taking his seat on the bench at 10 o'clock. The following gentlemen were sworn on the GRAND JURY. Edmund Henry Lyon Winder, Esq., foreman Kooert Davies Price, Esq.; William Lutener, Esq. Major General William G. Gold, Colonel Charles Hunter, I (ice Pryce Buckley Williams, Esq.; John George William Bousall, Esq.; Edward Davies, Esq,; John Pryce Davies, Esq.; YVilliaui Henry Adams, Esq.; John Robinson Jones, Esq.; John Cooke Hilton, Esq.; Joseph Owen Junes, Esq.; David Clarke, Esq.; Lumley Buckley Williams, Esq.; Richard John Edmunds, Esq.; Thomas William Hare, Esq.; John Stephens, Esq.; Septimus Scott, Esq.; Colonel George Edward Herbert, Captain Griffith Jenkins. His Lordship addressed the Grand Jury as follows Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, it is a matter of uo slight gratification to me to be enabled to meet you on the pre- sent occasion, and congratulate you on the small number of prisoners for trial, and that the offences are not of the worst character,^though some of them are bad enough. It says a good deal for the good iiaoits oi tne people ot this county. The offences in this calendar in number, I repeat are insignificant in the extreme. 't o gentlemen occupying the position you do in society this state of things must be very gratifying, because I am willing to think that a good deal of it may be attributed to the good example you set to those moving in a more humble sphere of life. I am glad also to say that I believe there is a marked improvement in the statistics of crime throughout England generally. But here, gentlemen, my congratulations must cease I find in this calendar crimes that are most repugnant to the English mind aud national character, and which every true Englishman abominates I allude to the use of the knife in cases of violence, and cutting and wounding. On looking over the depositions I see that all those offences, or nearly so, have been committed by persons while under the influence of drink. I hope, geutlemen, you will all do the utmost you can to do away with our national sin of drunkenness, and exercise all the inlfuence you possess to discourage it in those with whom you are connected. I firmly believe that at least one half of the crimes of this country are traceable to drink. In the other parts of the Principality I find thot in the cases of cutting and wounding there, they are alike traceable to drunkenness. I hope what I have said on the subject of drunkenness will not have been said in vain; for it is the besetting sin of the people of this country. The offences themselves are such that I need not explain them to gentlemen of your experience, I may, however, remark that in the case of Rogers there may be some doubt whether the evidence would ensure a conviction. He then dismissed them to their duties. STEALING A FAIR OF TROUSERS AND WEARING APPAREL AT LLANIDLOES AND LLANDYSSIL. George Gill, (30) labourer, and Margaret Gill, (24) were charged with stealing at Han'dloes, on the 22ud day of May, 1867, one pair of trousers, the property of ?'d2 ."I 111".?y. George Gill pleaded guilty, and Margaret Gill pleaded not guilty. Mr Horatio Lloyd prosecuted. He Sooid, the male prisoner pleaded guilty, he had no evidence to oSer against the female prisoner, and his Lordship directed the jury to bring in a verdict of acquittal, which after some deliberation they did. His Lordship sentenced George Gill to twelve months imprisonment with hard labour. HOUSEBREAKING AT NEWTOWN. John Hill, 30, puddler, and John Brown, 28, labourer, pleaded guilty to burglariously breaking aud entering at Newtown, on the 21st day of May, 1867, the dwelling house of John Green, and stealing therefrom one pair of boots, one table cloth, one pair of scissors, one knife, one purse, one silk handkerchief, two pair of stockings, one pair of trousers, and a quantity of butter, bacon, eggs, tea, and coffee, the property of the said John Green. There were several previous eonvictioua against Hill, and he was sentenced to seven years penal servitude, and Brown, who bad been previously convicted, to twelve months imprisonment and hard labour. I CHARGE OF CUTTING AND WOUNDING AT NEWTOWN. I The grand jury ignored the bill against David Rogers, I (on bail) who was charged with feloniously cutting and wounding Thomas Owen, at Newtown, on the 30th of April, 1867, with intent to maim and disable the said I Thomas Owen. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER AT NEWTOWN. James Wilson, 38, labourer, was charged with lelon- iously killing aud slaying, Michael McDonald, at New- town, on the 16th of March, 1867. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Horatio Lloyd prosecuted. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. CHARGE OF CONCEALING THE BIRTH OF A CHILD. Elizabeth Francis (on bail) was charged with conceal- ing the birth of her illegitimate child, on the 5th of July, 1867. The prisoner was found guilty,andtieu- tenced to one weeks' imprisonment. STABBING AND WOUNDING AT LLANIDLOES. Thomas Brown (un bail) was charged with feloniously stabbing Valentine Rees, at Llanidloes, on the 31st day of March, 1867, .thereby causing him grevious bodily harm. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Morgan Lloyd prosecuted, and Mr McIntyre de- fended. There were two counts in the indictment, the first charging the prisoner with attempt to commit murder; the second of stabbing with intent to do some grevious bodily harm. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty of unlawfully wounding. His Lordship, addressing the prisoner said Y our conduct is despicable in the extreme, and had the jury not taken the merciful view of your case that they have done, I should have felt it my duty to have given you penal servitude for a long term of years. As it is, the sentence of the court will be twelve months' imprison. ment with hard labour. This terminated the Crown cases. NISI PRIUS COURT,—WEDNESDAY. THE ASSAULT CASE AT WELSHPOOL. I Parker v. Eddovxs.—This was an action for assault brought by Mr Thomas William Parker, son of Mr Alderman Parker, Welshpool, who sought to recover X500 damages for an assault committed upon him by the defendant, Mr James Eddowes, son of Mr Councillor Eddowes, of the same place. Mr Morgan Lloyd and Mr Horatio Lloyd appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Mclntyre and Mr Coxon for the defendant. Mr Morgan Llojd oponed the pleadings, and Mr Morgan Lloyd stated the case. After some conversation between the counsel on either side and the judge, it was agreed that defendant should pay £ 3 to the Montgomery- shire Infirmary, that mutual apologies should be made, and each pay his own costs.-A juror was then with- drawn. I ACTION FOR TRESPASS. I R. Jones v. F. Jones.-This was an action for trespass upon a sheep-walk, and also for cutting and carrying away a quantity of fern, &c. Mr Horatio Lloyd opened the pleadings, and Mr Mclntyre stated the case to the jury. He did not ask for excessive damages, but such as would ensure the right of property to his client. The plaiutitl occupied a farm and slieel) walk at Garth Uchaf, and the defendant occupied the adjoining One of Garth Issa, near Machyn- lleth. Defeudaut had cut a quantity of fern on land to which be had no cJu.im, and appropriated it to his own use, and this actio was brought to restrain him, and to insure his client inthe possession of his undoubted right. The jury on Thursday, after a short consolation, returned a veidict for plaintiff with 40s. damages.

PRIMARY Itl'ASONFOR THE MEDICAL ESTIMATION OF DR. DE JONGH'S LIGHT-BROWN COD LIVER OIL. -This pure and gcnuiue Oil, in consequence of its invariably satisfying all scientific chemists, when subjected to an elaborate analysis,tliat it contains in the fullest propor- tions all the essential medicinal constituents of this powerful remedy. 1ms, from actual use and experience, acquired the confidence and secured the preference of the medical profession. Dr. Lankester, I.R.S., Coroner for Central Middlesex, ol)serves: I consider tliat tne I purity and genuineness of this Oil are secured ill its pre- paration by the personal attention of so good a chemist and intelligent a physician as Dr. de Jongh and Dr. Banks King's Professor of the Practice of Physic at the University of Dublin, remarks: The fact of so able and accurate an observer as Dr. de Jongh subjecting the Oil to careful analysis previous to its exposure for sale, is a sufficient guarantee of its purity and excellence." Dr. de .Tough's Light-Brown Cod Liver Oil is sold only in capsuled imperial half-pints, 2s 6d; pints, 4s 9d; quarts, 9s labelled with his stamp and signature, with- out which none cau possibly be genuine, by his sole con- signees, Ansar, Harford, and Co., 77, Strand, London; and respectable chemists.

I CAPTAIN MORGAN & THE GARTH FERRY., SIR,-Should the letter in your paper of the 20th inst- signe,d "A Visitor" referring to Garth Ferry and the present spirited lessee Captain Morgan," lead to a re- cognition of his services I shall have very great pleasure in subscribing to it. I am an occasional visitor to Beaumaris, and both I and my family have at all times found Captain Morgan most attentive to our comfort when crossing the Ferry; and should the weather have been boisterous and wet, both he and Mrs Morgan have always been most willing and obliging in attending to our wants. I can also testify to a many of my friends having ex- pressed themselves as having received similar kindness from both Captain and Mrs Morgan. Last year when staying in this locality I had a visit from a friend who had not been here for thirty years. He well recollected the" celebrated and good naturea Jack of Garth," and from the civility and kindness he received from Captain Morgan, lie thought there was a most worthy successor to him. Should any subscription be commenced for the pur- pose of testifying the appreciation of Captain Morgan's services, I shall be most happy to give my donation, and shall feel obliged by those parties attending to it will address to me as VISITOR No. 2, Box A 2, Post-ottice, Manchester Say-Visitor No. 2- For Captain Morgan £ 2 0 0 Mrs Morgan 1 0 0 Beaumaris, 22ad July, 1867. el

THE ROE MOUNTAIN ENCLOSURES, AND SIR RICHiRD BULKELEY, BART., M.P. SIR,-ln your report of the last Carnarvonshire Quar- ter Sessions, when the gentlemen present were discussing the above question, you attribute certain assertions to Sir Richard Bulkeley, Bart., which, if we rely upon the accuracy of your report, and which, if the respected gen- tleman applied to the parish of Llantairtechan, we must conclude either that he was misinformed, or that they are groundless assertions. Sir Richard stated that a per- son vitti only eight acres of land kept 4000 sheep also, that a person with only one acre of land, kept 500 sheep upon the mountain, This is quite erroneous with regard to the parish of Llaufairfecban, and I doubc very much whether the statement is applicable to any of the other parishes marked out for a district. In the whole parish of Llanfairfecban there is not one farmer who has sheep to the extent of 400. Sir Richard might have been wrongly informed, but we feel it only fair that all should know who take the question under their con- sideration, that as regards Llanfairfechan the state- ments are perfectly wrong. Yours, &c., A FARMER. [Sir Richard Bulkeley certainly did not particularly alhule to the parish of Llanblrfechan, but we under- stood him to speak of the district in which the out- rages upon property have been known to occur, and that includes several parishes,-ED. N.W.C.)

LLANFECHELL. THE NEW BURIAL GROUND.—A correspondent writes to say that in pursuance of a presentment made to him by one of the Churchwardens of his parish, the Ven. Archdeacon Jones paid a visit to the village of Llan- fechell on Thursday, the 11th instant, in connection with matters relating to the parish church. Our cor- respondent states that an additional plot of ground will now be granted to the present churchyard—the Rector having once promised, and then declined to grant the extension, and suggested' instead that a new public cemetery be built. Contributions it appears are freely promised for the object in view. Our correspondent refers to the recent charge delivered by Archdeacon Wickham, in'which he recommended unity amongst all churchmen; and if this spirit were found to exist be- tween Ministers and their Churchwardens and other officers, more success, he believes, would attend the church. This mutual good feeling he considers to be of vast importance, for without it there cannot be uniformity of action. Up to the present time, he says, it has been too much the fashion for the Churchwardens not to initiate reforms of any kind, but to leave things just as they have found them, and this state of things he sincerely deprecates.

LLANFAIRFECHAN. THE "WILD WOMAN."—The inhabitants of the upper part of this parish were thrown into great excitement this week by the report that the wild woman had made her appearance on the mountain. About four years ago this female hermit made her appearance in the neigh- I bourhood of Llanberis, where she lived on the mountain for seven weeks, day and night, and her food was said to be only grass After that time, about two years ago, we hear of her again making her appearance on the mountains in the neighbourhood of Penmachno and Dolwyddelen, and during her ramblings about the last place, she one day went to a farm house, and taking the advantage of the absence of the parents, she stole a little child from the house. On the return of the mother, to her great horror she missed the child, and whilst making enquiries the poor mother learned that this kidnapping wretch had been seen on the mountain with a child in her possession making her way towards Mer- ionethshire. Without waiting for any assistance the mother vigorously commenced the chase, and succeeded in overtaking her. A hard struggle then took place, for one fought for her child and the other for her prey, and at last the mother got the best of it and rescued her child. The wild woman was apprehended and was committed for trial to the assizes but by some mistake or other she escaped being tried. After the above affair the mountaineers were much excited. The wild woman again visited our neighbourhood on Thursday last. The police-sergeant stationed at Llanfairfechan was informed that she had been seen on the mountain near Cae haidd. Arrangements were made to meet at ten o'clock to go in search of her, and the officer waited until twelve at night when he started alone. After an unsuccessful search at Llwynbwgan, Llannerch, Bryngoleu, Gwar- IIwyn, and Caehaidd, leaving the last place and crossing the mountain for Rhiwiau, he found her fast asleep on the mountain. When she awoke she got up and com- menced running off, but she was overtaken by the officer and was brought down to Llanfairfechan about two o'clock in the morning. She is an Irishwoman, speaks little Welsh, and stated that she had been excommuni- cated by the Pope and was ordered to live in hermit- age for ten years. She was conveyed to Bangor, charged before Major Williams for wandering abroad without visible means to support herself, when she was sent to prison with hard labour for one month. -Communicated