Monmouthshire Merlin

Monmouthshire Epiphany Sessions. USK, MONDAY, JAN. 5,1846. A considerable number of magistrates came down to these sessions on Monday, most of whom took their seats on the bench punctually at twelve o'clock. We observed the following; LORD GRANVILLE SOMERSET, Chairman, Sir Digby Mackworth, Octavius Morgan, Esq., M.P., S. R. Bosanquet, Esq., the Hon. Wm. Rodney, William Addams Williams, Esq., Thomas Reece, Esq., Francis McDonnell, Esq., Ferdinand Hanbury Williams, Esq., Thomas Prothero, Esq., Major Marriott, William A. Williams, jun., E«q., Edward Harris Phillips, Esq., William Hunter Little, Esq., the Venerable Archdeacon Crawley, Rev. Francis Lewis, Rev. Thomas Pope, Rev. William Evans, Rev. Hugh Williams, Rev. W m. Powell, Rev. James Coles, George Cave, Esq., James Greenfield, Esq., and the Rev John Irving. The business paper of the sessions did not present any feature of great public interest, with the exception of the adjourned matter in reference to Mr. Merrett, the governor of the new house of correction at Usk, which has been so long a subject of discussion by the magistrates. It was understood that certain charges would be brought, forward in form, and defended by attorney. Mr. Merrett had prepared a long defence, consisting of eight pages, and extending over a period of sixteen years; copies of which had been supplied to the magistrates. The charges against the governor, supported by the evidence of several persons who had been, more or less, in the daily habit of seeing him in the discharge of his duties, were also sup- plied to the gentlemen on the bench, in the shape of a pamphlet; and each seemed to engage close attention. Alexander Waddington, Esq., clerk of the peace, read the orders of the last sessions. LUNATIC ASYLUM. In reference to the order connected with a lunatic asylum, Mr. Bosanquet, Sir Digbv Mackworth, and other gentlemen, had a conversational discussion for a short time, which termi- nated by Lord Granville Somerset drawing up a resolution, ^vhich Sir Digby Mackworth proposed, Mr. Bosanquet seconded, and the Bench adopted, to the following effect: '• "lhat a com- mittee be adopted, under the provisions ot the 8th and 9ti Vic., cap. 126, to institute the necessary communications witn neighbouring counties to ascertain what is the course which e&ch county is inclined to pursue, in regard to the establishing ot county lunatic asylums, for paupers or other lunatics; and further, that the said committee should exercise their own dis- cretion, in considering the question generally, and shall report their opinions on the several points proposed in the said Act, to the ensuing Quarter Sessions for this county. And also, that the said committee do consist of the following magistrates: fir Digby Mackworth, Mr. Bosanquet, Mr. McDonnell, Hon. William Rodney, Mr. E. H. Phillips, Major Marriott, and Mr. ■Hotut'ray. The noble Lord said he believed this resolution would meet views of most of the gentlemen who had cursorily spoken on the question. lit naming the gentlemen who appeared as a committee, his Lordship said, he was influenced by a desire that every district of the county should be represented; and that, too. as far as practicable, by senior magistrates for this was matter affecting the population of the county at large, and fequired grave deliberation. DISPOSAL 01" LAND NEAR THE NEW PRISON. The Clerk of the Peace called the attention of the magistrates to the* matter standing next on the paper for considera ion fiMnely the best purposes to which the land belonging to Jhe county, and adjoining the new house of correction, cou he applied. The gentlemen appointed to consider the matter, ?nd report thereon, had presented the following report: That In order to bring the land into a proper state of cultivation, it would be necessary to trench and clear the whole of the stones, and to remove or bury the stones and rubbish. An estimate has been made of the expense, which amounts to ,an outlay which the committee consider to be large, but which would yield a return of five per cent. The committee are of opinion, that there would be serious objections to letting 1 he land, and that it must remain in the occupation of the magis- trates or governor. "W. A. WILLIAMS, WM. EVANS, "E. H. PHILLIPS, THOMA8 REECE." Some desultory conversation followed between two or three gentlemen, at the conclusion of which, Mr. McDonnell proposed "Thatthe report of the committee, *8 to the best use which can be made of the land belonging to the county, adjoining the house of correction, be carried into <jffect by the visiting magistrates, at an expense not exceeding Mr. Prothero proposed That the ground outside the prison wall, the property of the county, be levelled, and allowed to grass over." Mr. Phillips remarked, that he would, by permission of his Lordship, make an observation, betore Mr. Prothero s amend- ment was put. Placing a large quantity oi stones, rubbish, and weeds upon the surface of the ground in question, father injure than improve the land. It would make the held is toul as possible. Grass would not grow there, stones and Weeds would be so closely imbedded. He considered the Bench could not do better, than follow the recommendation which the committee appointed on the matter had presented. Mr. Prothero said he was not aware that what he had pro- posed stood as an amendment—he had put it not being aware that any other motion was before the magistrates, and with a ■View to bring the question to a close. The Chairman said, that there were now two views of the taatter before the magistrates. Mr. Prothero remarked, that at this season, there was a large number of farm servants without employment, who might be engaged to level the ground properly, at a trifling expense. The Chairman then took the votes for the amendment pro- posed by Mr. Prothero, and the original motion by Mr. McDonnell when there appeared an equal number on each side. The casting vote of the chairman was therefore required, and It was given in favour of Mr. McDonnell s motion. TREATMENT OF DEBTORS. The Cleric of the Peace next read a communication from the Secretary of State, submitting for the sanction and adoption of the magistrates, certain regulations for the treatment of debtors committed pursuant to 8th and 9th Y;c., cap. 1-7, sec. 1 f „ The rules and regulations drawn up by the Secretary of State on this matter having been placed before the magistrates, His Lordship recommended that the following J«^lutlon should be adopted That the letter of the Secretary of State, ^lative to the 8th and 9th of Vic., cap. 127, be referred to the ^toiling magistrates of the county gaol, and that t y Rested to report thereon to the ensuing sessions. Ihe Solution was adopted. > REMOVAL OP POOR. f „ The Clerk of the Peace also read a communication from the r^cietary of State, respecting the removal of Scotch, lrHji, nd other poor, pursuant to 8th and 9th of Victoria, cap. 117 > c* containing suggestions offered by the Secretary ot State 'I. nile subject, for the guidance of the magistrates. conversation ensued upon this matter at the back o e t»ut il was carried on in so low a tone that we scarce ?&ught the purport of any observation. We believe, however, U remarked hv one eentleman that the cost ot the removal an the cost Of removal incurred in any other town in the county. Major Marriott ultimately expressed his opinion,that a com- W'boid bf.ppSSl to consider the .abject, and report This view ad t d b'. the bencb, and a resolution to the eWe was op e ct Was adopted accordingly. TT* „ ,UI HOUSE OF CORRECTION. THB GOVJ4RNOR OF THE HUU Ml. r» uaid—In pursuance of a notice Bivln KProthero noW 09e^a"ltr Sessions, I shall proceed to "lovf. m»*at 'ast Povernor of the House of Correc- tion AT TT'I ^elTet*'i mnved from his office; but before 1 ttiwi- *? (ort'™11 .„re. t. <*hortly the grounds on which I thir if ■V niotion> hv the Court. The first ground is fi 'k it should be acceded t y gary qualifications which are I (*oe9 n0* Pos:fes8 management of the present ^eemed essential to the effic only a negative charge Jouse of Correction. This ^jve blame to him but if it objection, and imputes no po ipieft9 imposes on the Ma- satisfactorily made out, it nev duty of removing him K strates of the County the unpl very great expense, and rom his situation. They have, county erected the House ^yunp0Si„g a heavy taxation on the aiwl in its plan Correction, of which Mr. ^e"e" cifl object of adapting and *jnd construction, had in viewthespix theJsiJeut 9eparate sys- Jendering it fit for the discipline ca undoubtedly For obtaining that P»rtfaula'%an would have been «*pended many thousand .gou foT carrying on the Necessary for the construction ot P ls—if system it could jWnier system that prevailed "}™reh atte„tion to the sub- ie called. I have not inyseif give" ™.u pBrate system, the Jpct, but if I understand the objec» that a prison ^'ncipal one in view amongst its P,™ ay be securely con- 8>«ld be merely a placeperwiis, but it is tVd, and punishment 'fL^ectedVaud that when .j'at their minds and morals should b instructed and re- J^ey leave the prison they should leave it tl)ey had ^med, and with different impressions fro thus expended ^hen they first became inmates ot it. nav B OBJect, f-'ery large sum of money for attaining n ,1^ Magistrates "will not be denied that it is ft duty imposed o d efficiently *° provide that the separate system is ad p 0fficers; and caiTied out by the governor and his tJv discharging he or they shall be found incapable of eftcieny^^ rem0Ve ^eir duty, it becomes incumbent on the ly^ S evidence of ge officer so found incapable. Now, think tne Merrett's incapability, and want of Macistrates for his tjons for his office, is sufficient to vis:t^K Magistrates Removal. On referring to a 5etP°io^!h DeCembef, 1843, there of the House of Correction, dated 26th DecernDe Mr. ^11 be found the following expression of their opinio "errett's unfitness for bis office,: „tron(r sense of the diffi- « The Tisiting Magistrates, line and manage- ^>lties they have to conte^d wUl thejr duty to 8tate their ^ent of the new prisou, feel governor, does not pinion to the Court that goyei-nment of a possess the qualifications req« managed according o friaon of the construction of t peculiar qualifications »he separate system an^rk07Cf0untyP|aor, for the duties of Mr.Barrett,the governor0 }ul but earnestly, recoin- 1 new prison, ^eLdnn ol the Court an exchange of the go- cogent ™»>ld be attended with f- «feat advantage to fhecounty. <( DaviE3) THOMAS REBCB, W. H. LITTLE, "WM. A. WILLIAMS, E. H. PHILLIPS." >' ^.nothing: »n vf1,non; and so i P recommended to the consideration JJerrett's removal, tlhat'« :V be removed t0 Monmouth, «the Magistrates that ne^s^ brougl)t to Usk. Looking t(J that Mr. Magistrates assigned in their report for ground which the Magwi in rer that they con- ^hi„g Mr. Merrett s remo At t]i(< sessions held on the ■'dered his amendment bop • made that the visiting Jjt January, 1844, '^Mo^mouth, duly appreciating th! of the gaol at A m0te the exchange, ^lUe of Mr. Barrett, irft no d, Klany Magistrates were the proposition fell to g 8hould be removed, and a J of opinion that Mr. Mene 8e9siotiS held on the 1st nf* appointment made; biit" Visiting Magistrates was April, 1844, the R«P°rSl^ideratk>n-and they sub- 'ferred back to them tor farthein3 idered improvement had tJ^ntly reported that they prison, though they did place in the management o1"' H it was ordered ?h°t all concur in that report^nd Ui^^p but under [t,at Mr. Merrett should be^ C0?S Magistrates, borne time e vigilant observation of the various rumour liav- fhre"ous to the last Midsummer Sessions. m the Bench, 8 reached the ears of ft Rev.. and lie thought it Ins « was induced to enquire into tne > had heard—and his J^ty, at that sessions, to state wh truth in the rumours f°nclusion was that there was enough conduct of Mr. had heard to call for a full enquiry referred to. The crrett, who was the subject of the ru Magistrates was ap- ^Pnsequence was, that a Committee ot » b -duct and fitl)ess Pointed 41 to investigate and enquire into iiouse of Correc- r office of the governor and. matron of Ma £ istra^e w^° Jon at Usk"—of which committee the learned now jn Presides in this court, in the absence of the n mittee the chair, was appointed chairman. wa9 put into Charges that had been made against Mr. Merr presented tormal shape. At the last sessions a „„„,i only two "J that committee to the court, of which I r J^r&grapbs. ^ffi.:pnt and We find that the governor does not exercise an effiCl does 1Ifoper controul over the subordinate officers, and tna ng study to keep up religious and moral impression gx_ inmates of the prison, in furtherance of the objects a ^tions of the chaplain; and that in consequence, tne g of the prison is in danger of being material j ^paired. (f We record with regret our opinion, that Mr. Merrett does not possess those qualifications which are essential to the ef- ficient management of the present House of Correction." (Signed) S. R. BOSANQUKT, Chairman. EDWARD H. PHILLIPS, "JAMES COLES, "JOHN IRVING." In the last paragraph, they report, in very decided terms, that Mr. Merrett does not possess the necessary qualifications essential for the management of the present house of correction, and thus reiterate the opinion given by the visiting magistrates in their report, dated 36th December, 1843. One of the gen- tlemen who signed the last report, signed the former; the other three gentlemen who signed the latter report, were not parties to the tormer. Thus you have the deliberate opinion of eight magistrates, that Mr. Merrett is unfit for this office, and if nothing further could be adduced against him, I cannot help thinking that it would be the duty of the magistrates to dis- charge him. This appeared so clear in the opinion of a magis- trate then and now present, that when he heard the last report read,he moved that Mr.Merrett should be forthwith discharged but a majority of the magistrates, thinking that the evidence taken by the committee should be reported before a decision on the report was come to, an order was made that the evidence taken should be printed, and a. copy sent to each magistrate. On that occasion, a magistrate, well acquainted with the rules and practice of the sessions, expressed an opinion, that if the present sessions should deem it right to discharge Mr. Merrett, that it would be necessary to give three months' notice of au intention to move for his discharge before such motion could be entertained; and though 1 differed in opinion from that gentle- man, I gave the notice, on which I now move that the present sessions might be clearly in a position to remove Mr. Merrett if they should think fit. The evidence that was taken by the committee has since been published, and discloses another and serious ground for discharging Mr. Merrett, which is, that he has not only permitted very loose and immoral conduct in his subordinate officers, but has himself set an example of such conduct. Mr. Prothero then proceeded to read passages from the printed evidence, but laid stress principally on the evidence uf Mr. Ilomfray, the chaplain of the prison. He then observed that the evidence on which the charge of drunkenness aud immorality rests, has been ably examined and observed on in a printed circular, addressed by Mr. Merrett to the magistrates of the county, dated the 2nd'inst., which will probably be read by Mr. Merrett in his defence and I am glad that he has had so able an assistant in preparing such defence for him. It was prepared by one accustomed to uxamine evidence by legal rules and the observations made by him will, no doubt, have the weight they deserve. I will not trouble the court with further remarks, but will move "That Mr. Merrett, the governor of the house ofcorrcction,having been found not to possess the quali- fications which are essential to the efficient management of the house of correction, be forthwith removed from his office." The Chairman here enquired if Mr. Merrett was present at the examination of witnesses against him but we did not hear either an affirmative or negative answer made to the query. The Rev. Mr. Pope said he felt it impossible to form any other opinion than that the governor was unqualified to fill his office. It was a matter much to be lamented, that although the county had been put to such expense in erecting the new prison, and in introducing a new system of discipline for the object of morally benefitting the prisoners, these Rood and great objects should be defeated through the incapacity of the governor. That officer should be of unexceptionable character, that his own conduct might act beneficially on the minds of the prisoners placed under his care. If the magistrates should concur with him in considering Mr. Merrett unfit to fill the office of gaoler, they would have but one course to adopt. It was, he knew, a painful duty to Mr. Prothero, and it was a painful duty to himself, to urge the discharge of Mr. Merrett— an old servant, whom they had known so long, and who so long had served the county so well; but it was his principle, that they never ought to let private feelings interfere with their public duty; and he would, therefore, second the motion of Mr. Prothero. Mr. Bosanquet, chairman of the committee last appointed, to investigate the charges against the governor, addressed the magistrates at considerable length upon the motion before them. He was bound to admit that there were contradictions in the evidence adduced against the governor; and he con- sidered that though there was sufficient proved to warrant them in discharging him on the ground of incapacity, yet this ought not to be done, without giving him an opportunity of rebutting the statements to which he had adverted, and which should not be the ground of his dismissal from office. Mr. B then shewed the fallaciousness and contradictory character of the charges brought against the moral conduct, &c., ot the governor, and said, if he were discharged on the other ground, namely, that of incapacity, they ought to give him the oppor- tunity of allowing him to get another situation. He would acknowledge that Mr. Merrett was not calculated to carry out the new regulations and provisions necessary for adopting successfully the principles of a new system, with which he was quite unacquainted but if they dismissed him, he should like to see him given a testimonial, which might enable him to pro- vide for himself in some other capacity. Mr. Bosanquet then went through certain portions of the governor's defence, a: d shewed that he was wrong in many assertions made therein; and concluded by a few animadversions on the inaccuracy of these assertions. iVir. McDonnell begged to be allowed to take part in this discussion. The learned gentleman then proceeded with much ability and some warmth, to insist that Mr. Merrett had not been fairly treated as an accused party. He altogether dis- sented from the extreme nature of the decision the magistrates were called upon to adopt, for the accused bad been arraigned on one distinct set of charges, and they were proceeding on another. One class of the witnesses examined, were rot capa- cita;ed to give evidence against a party they were prisoners, and another portion was formed of discharged officers, who were known to be adverse to the accused while the evidence adduced by both parties, was of a character which did not deserve a moment's consideration. MT. Merrett hadaclatm on every side of English justice, that the evidence produced against him should be most fully corroborated. He considered, in opposition to Mr. Bosanquet, that every portion of Mr. Merrett's defence was justifiable; and again, he should have been confronted with the witnesses who gave evidence against him. It was the principle of English law—it was the principle of the old Roman law—and it was the principle of all law— that the accused should be confronted with his accusers; hut this right had not been accorded to the accused in this case. After all the talk and all the evidence about habitual drunken- ness, &c., what was become of it? it had vanished into tlvn air!" The Rev. James Coles here made a remark. Mr. McDonnell begged the rev. gentleman not to interrupt; he would have time by and by to say what he wished. Mr. Coles was glad of having such opportunity. Mr. McPonnell proceeded to animadvert upon the evidence given by all the parties (excepting the chaplain)" characterising and proceeding to shew it as undeserving of belief, and a mass of mere moonshine." With regard to Mr. Homfrays (the chaplain's) evidence, Mr. McDonnell considered-after. ex- pressing his approbation of the rev. gentleman, as a friend whom he had long known and ever esteemed—that this gen- tleman's conduct in the matter was not such as it should have been; and added that what Mr. H. had stated was not to be considered as evidence. Mr. McDonnell then proceeded at great length to dwell on the several points of Mr. Merrett's defence, and spoke strongly in his favour, concluding by moving an amendment, That the motion of Mr. Prothero be negatived." Mr. W. A. Williams, sen., seconded Mr. Mc Donnell's amendment, and, in forciblaigprms, proceeded to characterise the proceeding against the gOTernor as harsh and unjust. He also warmly espoused the cause of the matron, Mrs. Merrett, whom he had known for a considerable number of years as & most praiseworthy and exemplary woman. Two of the female witnesses who had given evidence against the governor and the matron, he described as the most "infamous liars" that ever appeared before a bench, and concluded that the evidence brought forward against the accused party was altogether without foundation. Some of the gentlemen (said Mr. W.) who had spoken against the governor, appeared to have done so as advocates retained for the occasion. Mr. Protherb had gone minutely through the evidence brought against Mr, Merrett, till he came to the evidence of Mr. Bolton, the sur geon of the prison, but there he had stopped though that gen- tleman had deposed material facts—facts favourable to the ac- cused, and had said he had never seen any of the improper con- duct laid to the charge of the governor, and did not believe any portion of it. And, as regarded the evidence given by Mr. Homfray—respecting whom it would be unnecessary for him (Mr. W.) to say how highly he had always regarded him—in a legal sense, he said, no weight could be attached to it. Mr. Homfray had stated his belief of the testimony given by one of the female witnesses-" a disgraceful liar." "7 disbelieve it," said Mr. W. Mr. Williams proceeded to expose the in- consistencies and improbabilities of other portions of the evi- tdence. and after remarking upon Mr. Bosanquet's suggestion hat Mr. Merrett should be given some testimonial, if dis- charged, asked What remuneration can you give a man and his wife whose characters would be injured by their dismissal ? None Their prospects in life would be ruined. If we dis- miss Mr. Merrett, we shall do him a most grievous injustice, to which I can never consent to be a party Mr. Williams concluded by seconding Mr. Me Donnell's motion. The Rev. Mr. Coles then made some observations, in the course of which he said I defy Mr. Mc Donnell to Mr. Mc Donnell rose to order. Ills Lordship concurred by waving his hand to Mr. Coles. Mr. Coles submitted, and again proceeded in his observa- tions but the reverend gentleman speaking rather warmly and personally, r o His Lordship again interposed. Mr. Coles again bowed acquiescence and proceeded to com- ment on what had been said in favour of Merrett, and was pro- ceeding, if the chairman would permit him, to read a letter which a person lately employed at the House of Correction, but now engaged in Taunton, to whom he had sent, had written to A/R TUT s>) respecting Merrett; but Mr, Mc Donnell again rose to order. That letter could not be read. Mr Coles I beg your pardon, Mr. Mc Donnell. 1 shall submit to his Lordship's decision only. Lord Granville Somerset said that certainly such a document could not be read. After some further strictures upon the remarks made in fa- vour of the governor, and on that person's defence, and the wit- nesses he proposed to call to vindicate his (the governor's) character, the reverend gentleman concluded by stating his opinion that a sense of public duty dictated the removal of Merrett. Sir Digby Mackworth gave utterance to a kind and feeling address on behalf of the accused, and stated that he was of opinion no reliance ought to be placed upon the evidence brought forward against him. He quite concurred in the mo- tion of Mr. Mc, Donnell. The Rev. Mr. Irving said, that in signing the report upon the conduct and capability of the governor, he had not bound himself to support his dismissal. He left it an open question. Mr. Prothero, in making some exculpatory remarks on pas- sages of speeches in which he considered he had been alluded to, in the course of the debate, said he had not insinuated the slightest charge against the matron, Mrs. Merrett. The Chairman, after a short pause, said it might be expected by gentlemen upon the bench, that he should express an opinion on the matter; but he did not think it necessary to say anything respecting the capabilities of Mr. Merrett as governor—the visiting justices could most consistently do this and he hoped with respect to the other portions of the charge against that person, the magistrates would not be so influenced by the rumours which had been spread. The visiting magistrates had an irksome duty to perform. The system introduced was an experimental on. ;.and to expect visiting magistrates or gaoler, chaplain or turnkeys, matron or any other servant of the prison, to go through the performance of their several duties without a mistake, would be most unreasonable. For for him (Lord Granville Somerset) to express a decided opinion on the ma- nagement of the pnson-not having examined this point par- ticularly— could scarcely be expected; and therefore he should not, perhaps, be accused of evading his duty, if he did not enter upon it at all. Was Mr. Merrett guilty, then, of the othei charges—setting incompetency aside—or was he only partially guilty ? or was he innocent ? His lordship had read all the evidence, and he did think the committee appointed to investi- gate the matter, had admitted statements which put the accused to great disadvantage. He should have had the benefit of being present at the investigation. His lordship did not mean to say the accused should have been called in at first, before the com- mittee had deoided upon the course they intended to adopt; but when they had evidence brought before them assuming a sub- stantive shape against the accused, he ought in all fairness to have been allowed to be present. He ought to have had the advantage of asking questions, in explanation. He entertained these views on evidence in general; and he therefore did not think he should be satisfied to condemn any man on evidence not given according to the rules of English justice. During Mr Homfray's evidence, especially, the accused should have wn oresent. All concurred in bearing testimony to the ex- cellence of Mr. Homfray's character and disposition; and in view his lordship joined most cordially. No ma* better the duties of his sacred office. Some circumstances might have ariseS between that rev. geutleman andMr. Merrett, which ought to have been corrected at first. He (Lord Gran- vilte Somerset) would be sorry if the governor did not afford the chaplain every facility in his power, in that gentleman's endeavours to reclaim prisoners but looking at the statements made by Mr. Homfray in evidence, in this particular, his lord- ship considered there was but little against Merrett. Besides Mr. Homfray had stated what others had said; and deposed but little from his own direct knowledge. Not that he (the chairman) objected altogether to such questions being opened, as those upon which Mr. Homfray had remarked; but when hearsay evidence was given, on po'nts so important, Mr. Merrett in common justice, should have been confuted with the witness, to hear his evidence or remarks re-stated, and that Mr. Homfray might be exposed to a cross-examination on behalf of the accused. Nevertheless, Mr, Homfray's evidence, his lordship said, did not bear against the governor. His lord- ship had taken no pains to be informed privately on any part of the case but he could fairly say, that the evidence of the chap- lain did not at all impugn the conduct of Mr. and Mrs. Merrett; but were his lordship to pick out portions here and there of the' rev. gentleman's evidence, he believed a good case might be established therefrom in their favour. His lordship did not mean to compliment the governor respecting his capabilities to fill his office-he did not thing him fully qualified; but the question was had there been enough proved against him to make his discharge necessary. He certainly considered, as one of the jurymen sitting in judgment on Mr. Merrett, that there was not. Mr. Homfray's statement was said to be the chief evidence against the governor; but in that, his lordship saw nothing that established his gnilt. Look at all the other wit- nesses. No judge could deem their evidence worth a great deal, looking at all the circumstances in connexion with it. The accused had been a diligent and well-approved servant of the county, for fifteen or sixteen years; and his lord- ship did not think all the evidence now brought forward, put together, established a case against him. Some of the most im- portant accusations were charged against the accused, by per- sons who had been reprehended by him as their officer. When called upon to say guilty, or not guilty, he (the Chairman) should not deem himself honest, if he did not say he attached no weight to the only evidence upon which Mr. Merrett could be found guilty. With regard to the evidence of the constable Hopkins, who might be deemed the most respectable among the witnesses to whom his lordship had, just adverted,—never were statements more improbable. Hopkins had put forth state- ments, having lost much itme and money, in consequence of being obliged to wait in Usk to see the governor- Now who would believe this man would keep his tongue between his teeth," were such the fact, when he knew that by speaking, the proper remuneration would have been given him for the great expense and loss of time he had been at ? Looking at this man's assertions in the usual way, his lordship said the impression on his mind was, that he should be committing an act of great injustice and impropriety, were he to allow such evidence to have any weight with him whatever. If the go- vernor was really such an habitual drnnkard, has had been re- presented, his lordship could not help thinking, that during a residence of sixteen years in a place where much ill will might be expected to exist against him, Merrett might have been ac- cused by some other than persons of the character of those who had given evidence against him. After consideration of the mass of evidence brought forward against Merrett. his lordship could not say he believed him guilty of the charges respecting his moral conduct, Afcc. Of his competency, he would make no remark, being desirour of separating the question of moral con- duct, from the question of his inefficiency. His lordship would be sorry to countenacc the idea. which must exist, were the governor dismissed, that he was an immoral man. Lord Granville Somerset concluded by saying I have discharged my duty as a juror, in expressing my opinion on the subject before us; and I do not think the accused is guilty of the charges preferred against his conduct." The observations of the noble chairman were listened to throughout, by the crowded bench, and by a large number of persons who had congregated in the court, with the most pro- found attention. Mr. Merritt appeared to feel deeply the in- terest taken in his behalf by a large number of gentlemen on the bench. His Lordship then proceeded to take the votes for or against the dismissal, when there appeared I For the governor's dismissal 6 Against 13 FIFANCB. Some short time having elapsed, Mr. Bosanquet moved that Mr. Prothero be added to the finance committee which was ordered. The Clerk of the Peace presented the report of the finance conimitte, and read it. It was to the following effect: "The committe beg to call the attention of the court to the report made at the last sessions, by the finance committee, on the subject of the coroners' bills, and the charges therein made for inquests in cases of natural deaths; it appearing that there are several in- stances in the coroners' bills now presented, of cases of natural deaths occurring, unaccompanied by any explanations of the necessity of inquests being held in those cases The com- mittee recommended a rate of one penny in the pound for the service of the ensuing quarter. Information has been re- ctived by this committe, of the existence of some agreement between the common council of Newport and some party, for the conveyance of prisoners to gaol, which appears to this com- mittee to require investigation." Mr. Prothero, county treasurer, reported that the union of Abergavenny and the parish of Mamhilad had not paid their proportion of the county rate. Mr. Batt. the clerk of the Abergavenny union, guaranteed that the amount due should be paid. COUNTY RATB. A county rate of one penny in the pound was ordered for the ensuing quarter. CONVEYANCE OF PRISONERS FROM NEWPORT. On that portion of the finance committee's report relating to the contract entered into by the Town Council of Newport, for for the conveyance of prisoners from that borough to the pri- son at Usk. Mr. Woollett, Town Clerk of Newport, observed to the ma- gistrates that formerly, the council allowed the police force various fees,-among which were those arising from the con- veyance of prisoners to gaol,-as a portion of the wages earned by them but it was subsequently arranged that they should be paid a regular sum per week, and not, in future, by the fees, which would be taken by the council. The Chairman Is that legal ? Mr. Woollett said he believed it was. The object of the council, in paying the policemen a regular salary, was to set aside all encouragement to hatching up cases, from which they might derive fees. Some conversation ensued between the Chairman, Mr. Prothero, and Mr. Woollett, in an under tone, and in reply to a question from his lordship, Mr. Woollett said the rate at which prisoners were conveyed according to con- tract, was 4d. each, and he believed the county was charged 9d. pier pmaaer, but which included a# well th £ actual cotts ofet of pocket as an allowanoe to the constable for his trouble and loss of time. His Lordship: A very good per centage. (Laughter ) Mr. Woollett said he believed the contractor was almost tfred of his contract, and contemplated gettfng out of it—it didn't pay. His Lordship said the matter must be referred to the finance committee. Mr. Prothero, who was this day added to that oommittee, said he would pay particular attention to the matter as soon at it was brought forward. Some further conversation ensued, shortly after which the matter dropped, The various bills against the county, examined and passed by the finance committea, were ordered. COUNTY BRIDGES. Mr. James, the county surveyor, presented his report on the state of the county bridges, nearly the whole being reported, as in good repair. The Chairman said he had never seen a lighter report pre- sented on this matter. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, Mr Graham the county inspector of weights and measures, presented his report, from which it appeared that a little active exertion had brought about £ 80. fines into certain coffers- No report was made by the Clerk of the Peace of divisions from which no returns of fines had been sent, there being no defaulters except Newport, and the return would be presented from that town on Tuesday morning. PRISON REPORTS. The quarterly prison reports were presented from the County Gaol and the House of Correction. There was nothing in either requiring comment, except that they were of a gratifying des- cription. Lerd Granville Somerset and Octavius Morgan, Esq;, were appointed to fix the time for holding the next quarter sessions. Several rules of Friendly Societies were presented and en- rolled after which the Court, having sat till six, adjourned to half-past nine on Tuesday morning. TUESDAY. The court sat this morning at half-past nine, Lord Gran- ville Somerset, chairman, supported by Sir Digby Mackworth, the Rev. Thomas Pope. F. R. Bosanquet, Esq., G. Cave, Esq., William Addams Williams, jun., Esq., Rev. Mr. Evans, Thomas Reece, Esq., Richard Fothergill, Esq., J.M'Dounell, Esq., and the Rev. Mr. Irving. GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen formed the panel of grand jurors Mr. Rees Edward Rees, Foreman: Mr. Philip Rees, Mr. William Latch, „ Thomas M. Smith, John Broughal, T. B. Batchelor, „ William Young, John Harley, David Blackwood, „ J. Lobbett, jurij. „ Edward Hicks, John Beynon, E.M.Jones, Edward Turberville, William Gooddal, John Davies, Joseph Brown. The jury was chiefly composed of gentlemen resident in Newport. The Clerk of the Peace read the Queen's proclamation against vice and immorality. His Lordship then addressed the grand jurors to the follow- ing effect:— GENTLEMEN OF THE GRAND JURY,—I am glad I am able to say, that the amount of business for your discussion or in- vestigation this session, is not of a very weighty or serious nature, although I have been present at sessions when the number of prisoners has been smaller. Of late years, perhaps from the increase of police forces, and other causes, the amount of charges has been on the increase. The eases which will be brought before you. gentlemen, are of an or. dinary character—there are none of great atrocity and not one of great injury to the person so that there will be no serious matters for your consideration. Yet though this is the case, there are invasions of property by persona in trust, to which you will direct attention for it is an offence which must bo checked and while you do justice to the public in duly investigating such cases, you will still be mindful that you do justice to the accused. I will now call your attention to two or three cases, which may require a few observations. They are not matters of great crime but it will be your study, while you do all you can for the interests of the public, still to be cautious to prevent any person being placed at the bar as a prisoner, whom you are not fully satisfied on every point, deserves to be placed there. The first is the case in which parties are charged with stealing a cow at Newport-it appears from the evidence that a man sold. a cow to a party who took another in its stead. To establish the guilt of the party accused, you must be convinced there was no mistake in the matter. Many witnesses who will be called, will place the case in different views before you; but it will be for you, gentlemen, before you can find a bill. to be perfectly satisfied that the party who slaughtered the cow, did so, knowing the animal net to be the one they bought. If you can discover that the accused acted under a mistake, it will then be your duty to ignore the bill; but it; on the contrary, you see suf. ficient evidence to set aside the idea of a mistake having oc. curred, it will then be for you to find the bill. Thete is one point in this case, gentlemen, to which I should call your attention. The cow was not fetched by the accused party, but by a person whom he sent; and when she was brought to the slaughter house the accused immediately said that was not the cow and sent him back for the one which was subse- quently slaughtered. This is evidently a point which goes far to establish the idea that the whole affair arises from a mistake Yet I will not prejudice your minds, but leave you to draw your own conclusions from the evidence which will be brought before you. There is another case to which I will also call your attention. A person is charged with stealing a cask of cider. It appears he sold a quantity of cider, and is alleged to have illegally appropriated the proceeds. Now it will be for you to consider whether he sold the cider with a view to pocket the money, or under an impression that be was to remunerate himseit for a supposed debt due to him, out of the proceeds But you will, I doubt not, be able to arrive at a proper conclusion, and without much trouble. there is a case, also, to which I would draw your attention. A party at Newport are said to have created a riotous as- semblage, or assault, or something of that kind, respecting ) the disputed possession of a malt house. Now it will not be your province to enquire whether A or B was entitled to possession but whether the party intruding into possession, did so with unwarrantable force or violence. You will have to find whether the defendants had asserted their right to pos- session wrongfully, and against the law. If you find this to be the case, you will send in a bill; but should you consider that they did not exceed their right in claiming possession, your duty will be to ignore the bill. I eiv„ you no opinion on the matter, but you will pay strict attention to the evidence, so that you may not send persons here for trial, except on the most conclusive and satisfactory grounds. There are no other cases which I have need to point out by parti- cular observations. The gentlemen on the bench will be happy to render you any aid in the discharge of your duties though I do not think—looking at the respectable gentlemen see in the box—that you will need our assistance on any part of the business you will have to transact His Lord. ship then dismissed the grand jurors to their room, with a confident hope that they would justly perform their duty both to the public and the accused. The court then proceeded to hear the following APPEALS. Tregare, appellants Drngestow, respondents.—Mr. Daniel for the appellants; and Mr. Smythies for respondents.—Order quashed, with the usual costs of two guineas. St. Woollos, appellants; Redwelty, respondents.—Mr. Rickard for appellants; and Mr. Daniel for respondents.— Order quashed. without costs. James Kenear Waters, appellant Thomas Hawkins and Thomas Hughes, Esqrs., Magistrates of Newport, respondents. Mr. Smythies, for the appellant, moved the court to respite the appeal; to which Mr. Rickards. for the magistrates, strongly objected. He stated that the appeal was against a conviction of the magistrates for allowing persons of notori ously had character to assemble and meet together in his public house—notice of appeal had been jriveftby Waters, and the witnesses had been bound over in a recognisance to appear in court and sustain the conviction. Much argument followed on the application of Mr. Smythies, who declined admitting that notice of appeal had been given. At length Mr. Rickards called Mr. Kessick, clerk to the magistrates at Newport, who produced the original notice of appeal, and deposed that he received it from Mr. Hawicim, one of the magistrates, and saw Waters sign his name to it in Mr. Hawkins' office. The notice was read by the Clerk of the Peace, which stated, after giving notice of tlM appeal to the sessionx. I am £ iot guilty of the offence, àÍHI the persons alleged to be of notoriously bad character are not so, and I did not know they were in my house," &c.; and was signed, "James Kenear Waters."—Mr. Smythies said he was satis- fied notice of appeal had been given. No witnesses being present to support the appellant, the court confirmed the con- viction immediately after which, Mr. Smythies begged that the appeal should be proceeded with, the witnesses for the ap- pellant having now arrived—The court would not alter its decision, as it would be wrong to encourage negligence as regarded time in persons having witnesses to produce to the court.—Mr. Owen, solicitor, requested his lordship would al- low the appeal to proceed, as the blame, if any, wM attribut- able to his having been informed by Mr. Smythies that the court had respited the appeal.—The court adhered to their decision, and allowed the costs, as taxed by the Clerk of the Peace, indemnifying the convicting justices. The petty jury were sworn, and the Court proceeded with THE TRIAL OF PRISONERS. BHBEZZLBXBXT AT MR. SHEPPARD" ESTABLISHMENT Thomas James, aged 25, read and write well, was indicted for stealing, on the 15th December, one shilling, the property of Henry Sheppard, grocer, Newport.—The prisoner appeared remarkably altered and care-worn since his appearance at the bar of the Newport police court. He was respectably attired in a black dress coat and trowsers, with white neckcloth. On the indictment being read, he pleaded Guilty in a very low tone. —Mr. Daniel, counsel for the prosecution, intimated to the Court, that the prosecutor recommended the prisoner to mercy. There were also gentlemen present prepared to give him a good character.—The Chairman said, that although jthe magistrates had every disposition to receive the kind recommendation of the prosecutor, there was no need to examine witnesses to cha- racter. His lordship then proceeded to pass sentence on the prisoner, saying: Thomas James, the Court deeply regrets to see a young man of your respectable appearance, and previous good character, stand in your present disgraceful situation. If the Court considered you an hardened offender, your sentence would have been very severe; but the Court would be failing in its duty, if it did not inflict upon you such punishment as would mark its sense of your guilt, and prove a warning to you in future years, and to all situated, as you were, in places of trust and confidence. Your sentence is, that you be confined in the House of Correction eight calendar months, with befit- ting hard labour.—The prisoner, who appeared much affected and very penitential, bowed to his lordship, and was removed from the bar. Mr. Woollett was solicitor for the case. Ann James, aged 23, read and write imperfectly, was indicted for stealing, on the 14th of December, two sovereigns, nineteen shillings, and sixpence,the property of John Jones, shopkeeper at Risca, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment in the County Gaol, with befitting hard labour. Measrs. Birch and Davis solicitors for the prosecution. Jane Lewis, aged 30, read imperfectly, not write, was indicted for stealing, on the 19th of December, 6 ozs. of tobacco, of the value of Is. 6d.,the property of William Baber.—The prisoner pleaded Guilty; but by the advice of her counsel, Mr. Rickards, she retracted her plea, and witnesses were then called, who gave her a mast excellent character.—Mr. Daniel, for the pro- secution, was glad his learned friend had adopted this course, as it was the wi*li of the prosecutor that she Should be dealt as leniently with as possible.—Sentenced to one week's impri- sonment in the House of Correction, with befitting labour.— Mr. Gabb, of Abergavenny, solicitor for the ease. James Silcox, aged 38, read imperfectly, not write, was in- dicted with having stolen, on the 29th of Deeember, a brass candlestick, the property of Mary Williams. A second count charged the prisoner with having stolen, oil the above day, a shawl, the property of Elijah Brittoa.—No evidence was offered on the latter count, upon which he was acquitted; but on the first count he pleaded Guilty, and was sentenced to four eal%a- dar months' hard labour in the House «f^errectioa. Mr. f. Edwards, of Pootypool, solicitor for the case. A DISHONEST LODGER. Thomas Gibson, aged 18, read and write well, was indicted for having stolen, on the 7th of December, a coat and handker- chief, the property of Daniel Davies, at Blaina.—Mr. Daniel, for the prosecution, called Penelope, the wife of the prosecutor, who said that the prisoner, one of her lodgers, decamped with the property laid, which was afterwards found in his possession in Wiltshire. The articles were produced and identified.—The prisoner was found Guilty. Six months' hard labour in the House of Correction Mr. R. Waters, Tredegar, solicitor for the prosecution. ROBBING A FBLLOW-WORKMAN. John Hallen, aged 20, read and write well, wa. indicted for having, on the 6tn of November, stolen a flannel jacket, the property of Daniel Bryant. The prisoner was a very forbidding- looking fellow, with the most sinister leer that ever stared at a bench.~The prosecutor told his story with a rich Irish pathos, in reply to the examination of Mr. Rickards for the prosecu- v aPPeared that the prisoner was his fellow-workman at the -Blaina Works, and had stolen hie jacket, and impudently wore it till taken into custody by the policeman Hodder.—-The prisoner told a "moving tale of accidents" by travels over many a mile of ground without a farthing in his purse, or bit • VL* driven to desperation, he at length had stolen the jacket of this other" Daniel come to judgment," just to gain a bellyful of wittles on the tog."—Guilty- Two months' im- prisonment in the House of Correction, with hard labour.— Mr. Edwards, Pontypool, solicitor for the case. THE BULLOCK'S MAD OF KB, ROWB. ^31j1rlI\Pe?11' aged 28, read imperfectly, not write, was in- dicted for having stolen, on the 26th of December, a bullock's head, of the value of 4s., the property of Thomas Rowe.—The prisoner was a fine specimen of the jolly tar. His thick blue woollen shirt, open at the neck, and a huge red wrapper hang- ing loosely over his brawny shoulders, with his dirty ducks oc- casionally hitched up, presented a bold picture of the careless manner. His demeanour was very confident, and he roared out lustily, when called upon, Here I be, my hearties!" The evidence was so recently reported in our columns, that it need not be given again; but we may state that one ofj the witnes- ses persisted m terming the prisoner, "thatgenelman," and others would have it that the bullock's head was Mr. Rowe's head—the ♦ identical head of Mr. Rowe; and that worthy himself insisted 'twas his own head'"—Guilty. Two months' imprisonment, with hard labour in the House of Correction, with hard labour. Mr. Woollett, solicitof for the case. SHOPLIFTING IN USK. Mary Jones, a middle aged female, with an infant in her arms, was indicted with having stolen, on the 22nd December, a shawl, the property of James Williams, draper, Usk —Mr. Somerset, counsel for the prosecution, called Mr. Williams, who proved that on the day laid the prisoner came into his shop, and seeing her stand suspiciously near a pile of woollen shawls, he directed a shopman to watch her. She was shortly after going away, and ou being brought back, witness found the shawl under her cloak. Witness identified the shawl.— Witnesses gave her an excellent character. Guilty. Recom- mended to mercy by the jury, and most earnestly, by the prose- eutor.—One month's befitting labour, in the House of Correc- tion.—Mr. Shepard solicitor for the prosecution. A FOWL TRANSACTION. Mary Worley, aged 41, read imperfectly, not write, was in- dicted for having stolen, on the 4th of December, three fowls, the property of Moses Shields.—The prisoner, who had been out on bail, was exceedingly deaf. Mr. Daniel called Moses Shields, the prosecutor, who proved he had lost three chicken from his residence at Llangwm Isha. Mary Worley lived with her husband near prosecutor, and thither he went to search for his fowls. He saw the entrails of chicken before her door. He then went for his friend Powell, and on returning, went into Worley's house, where they saw a quantity of feathers, which he recognised by their being of a peculiar character, the fowls being half-pheasant. He readily guessed that these were the remains of his ill-fated brood, cut off in the bloom of youth. He was shown on the same dav two chicken, which he identi- fied by their peculiar head, feet, and legs—Powell proved he saw the prisoner in the Usk market offering two chicken for sale, which he afterwards took possession of.—Mr. Smythies defended the prisoner in an able address, and she was acquitted. —Mr. Shepard solicitor for the case. George Morris, aged 27, read imperfectly, was indicted for having stolen, on the 22nd of November, four beech poles, of the value of (id., the property of his Grace the Duke of Beau- tort.— 1 he prisoner pleaded Guilty. Recommended by prose- cutor s counsel to mercy. One month's imprisonment and hard labour in the House of Correction.-Mr. W. A. Williams, of Monmouth, solicitor for the prosecution. PICKPOCKETS AT MONMOUTH-THB JURY FUZZLBD. George Thomas, aged 28, read and write imperfectly, was in- dicted for having stolen, on the 22nd Nov., 15s. and a silk purse, the property of Mary Bennett.—Mr. Smythies, for the prose- cution, examined Mrs. Mary Bennett, a respectable-looking temale who dep08ed that on the 22nd of last November, the &fair-*ay at Monmouth, she was talking to her brother in Monnow-street. when Williams, the constable, asked her if she had lost anything and on searching, she found her purse and money were goni' Both were safe half-<m.hour before.-Wm. Williams proved tha,t he saw the last witness, with the prisoner and two other suspicious-looking fellows, standing behind her. He fancied they Were pickpocket, and watched their actions. Saw prisoner lift the dress of the lady, draw out something, put his hand in his pocket and drew out his ™k"c^f, which was also done by one of his friends, and bJeohi8no«e. They then decamped. On asking the lady if she had lost anything, she found her pocket had been picked, and he immediately started off in pursuit. He captured the prisoner, but the plunder was not found upon him.-Prisoner, in cross-examining witness, put questions to him in a business- like manner, and the witness having reiterated a statement pr«oner asked him why he had made a different statement at JKonmouth before the magistrates; and immediately pulled out 5 C0P.y of the depositions; with which he had provided himself, desiring his lordship to see how much the witness had forsworn himself. In fact the whole conduct of the prisoner-who had a most roguish eipres.ion-exhibited strong proofs of his being an old practitioner, up to all the devices necessary to carry on a warfare ao-ain.V n^kets and policemen.—The jury consulted »could not agree in their verdict, and were not likely to come to a de- euion at all in eonseouence of the purse not being found upon tbe prisoner'.—Hi» Lojdslup «aid that nothing to do with I the guilt or innocence of the prisoner—the only question was, did he take the purse or net ?—The jury again consulted, and his Lordship said the private room must be prepared, and a constable sworn, that they might be locked up, tiH they agreed on their verdict. This seemed to have some effect, as they im- mediately proceeded to reconsider the matter.—Guilty. Twelve months' hard labour in the County Gaol.—Mr. J. G. George attorney for the prosecution. [We are obliged to omit the details of several cases of some interest, from Newport, the names, sentences, &c., in which, appear in another part of our paper; but we shall resume the report next week, when we purpose giving a condensation of the evidence preferred against Mr. Merrett, and his defence thereto.] WEDNESDAY. Gwinifred Jones and Mary Williams were indicted for having stolen, on the lith of December, a pair of boots, the property of John Whistance, and eleven handkerchiefs, the property of David Davies.—Prisoners pleaded Guilty. Four month's b2- fitting labour in the County Gaol.—Mr. Davies, Merthyr, soli- citor to the case. Mary Davies pleaded guilty to stealing one shilling and three sixpences, and a pair of stays, the property of David Davies, and was sentenced to six months' befitting labour in the County Gaol.—Mr. Davies attorney for the prosecution. Margaret Sullivan pleaded guilty to stealing, on the 11th of December, 451bs of coal, the property of John Russell, Esq., and others.— Mr. Superintendent Hopkins spoke to character. She had been an industrious and honest servant of Mr. Philip Williams, of Crindau.—The Chairman said the Court always regarded favourably the recommendation of a good character but it was necessary to show that coal..stealing-now so common an offence—should be marked by punishment.—One month's imprisonment, with befitting labour, in the House of Correction. —Messrs. Birch and Davis attornies for the prosecution. MISDEMEANOURS. THE ALLEGED RIOT AT NEWPORT. Thomas F.Lewis, William King, Evan Thomas, andMeyrick Jones—admitted to bail on the 26th of November, charged on the oaths of James Graham and others, with unlawfully and riotously assembling together with divers other persons, to dis- turb the peace, and then and there assaulted the said James Graham—were now placed at the bar indicted on three counts, the first charging the defendants with forcible entry, the second with charging them with riot, and the third with assault. The case excited considerable attention. For the prosecution Mr. Daniel was retained; and two counsel, Mr. Rickards and Mr. Barratt, were retained for the defence; Mr. Llewellyn was the solicitor for the former, and Mr. John Phillpotts solicitor for the latter.—The indictment having been read by the Clerk of the Peace, and the defendants called on to plead, they each distinctly said, Not Guilty. The jury were then sworn, and Mr. Daniel stated the case, the substance of which will appear in evidence.—The witnesses were ordered out of court.—Mr. J. Latch, jun., was the first witness called. He said: I am in partnership with Mr. William Cope, as maltsters and brewers at Newport. We occupy a malthouse in High-street, which we came in possession of on the ]2th of last November, on a taking from Mr. Samuel Phillips, which was confirmed before Mr. Fox, solicitor. Mr. Phillips was the agent of Miss Poulton' the landlady. We received the key from John Jones, I having previously gone over the premises, and locked them up on the same day. —Cross-examined by Mr. Rickards: I took the keys from Mr. Phillips as the agent of Miss Poulton, and I have heard that she has been found a lunatic from the 1st January, but do not know who are the committee. Jones was not the tenant nor agent of Miss Poulton. There are three outer doors to the premises. The key we had, belonged to the door on the ground floor. I put no one in possession when 1 left the premises on the 12th. Lewis was not in possession on the 13th or 14th, that 1 am aware of.—Re-examined by Mr. Daniel: We put a man in possession on the 18th November, because I found some one had been to the premises in the interim, taken off the lock, and put on a fresh one. Graham and Richards were put in possession. The key was received from Jones, in accordance with the agreement with Mr. Phillips.—John Jones was next sworn. He said he had taken the key of the malt- house frdm Meyrick Jones, being responsible for the rent. The tenancy of Jones expired on the 1st day of November, and he had given Messrs. Latch and Cope the key on the 12th The witness went on with a very mystified story, which appeared in many particulars to be ot no service to either party. When taken in hand by the opposing junior counsel, he got into such a bewildered state, that he might apparently be induced to say anything, though he is esteemed a man of probity in general. —James Graham was next examined; and those who visit the courts of justice with but a desire to gloat over the writhing tortures to which witnesses are exposed, under some lines of cross-examination, were highly delighted at the position which was occupied by Mr. Graham before he went down. He said he was watchman to Messrs. Latch and Cope, and was placed by the former in possession of the malthouse in High-street, on the 18th of November. Kichards was sent with him. They were disturbed in possession on the evening of the 24th. On the morning of that day, Richards and him were charged with forcible entry before the borough magistrates, but on the same evening, the defendants themselves took forcible possession of the malthouse, and Mr. Lewis assaulted witness. Before the defendants broke in, witness had locked two doors, and kept the other door reserve." Richards asked witness to let him out for a few minutes—he didn't know for what—and when he came in again, he said they were breaking in at the door at the top of the steps. Looked out, and saw Lewis opening the door followed by several men. There were at that time below stairs with witness, Jones, Ball, and Richards. Witness fastened the door, and went upstairs to meet the intruders—seven or eight of them, and told them they had no business there. Mr. Lewis said to his men—among whom were the other defendants— Go on! never mind that fellow; he's no use to us." Witness then saw a pistol in the hands of Lewis, who came up to him Said to Lewis, "What! are you coming up to me with a pistol ?" and he said, "Yes and I'll give it thee, if thee touch me." So witness said, Then give it. Then the defendant came and placed the muzzle up to the third button of his waistcoat, and 'tick, went the pistol- 'against the button. (Laughter.) The defendants next went downstairs. Witness was afraid to follow them down, and therefore ordered his man Richards to go down, and see how affairs were going on. (A laugh.) When Richards was below, witness called out, Is there any danger ?" to which he replied, "I don't think there is!" (A general laugh.) So then witness ventured down. (Another laugh, in which the court and counsel joined.) The front door had been fastened by a bar, which some of the intruders took away, and he had not seen it since. (More mirth.) Didn't turn them out, nor try to—no good to, he supposed. Saw a man coming in, very much the worse for liquor, and witness said to Lewis, Are these here the sort of men you bring to take possession ?" He said, Graham, he is a better man than you—you are no man!" to which witness replied, Yes, I am! if you come out fair." Lewis then presented the pistol a second time. Witness then became terrified, and retreated (Laughter.)—Mr. Rick- ards then rose, and desired Mr. Graham to stay—he had a few questions to ask him. Are you the man who comes here to give evidence against eoal-stealers at Newport ?—I am.—And pray who placed you in possession of this malthouse ?—Why master, to be sure.—Now pray is not this Richards you men- tioned a celebrated man in fighting matters ?—I don't know.— Didn't you think him a more skilful general than yourself, when you sent him downstairs to reconnoitre the enemy; or a better warrior?—No; I was the ehief man. (Laughter.)—Oh! then you were captain, and he the lieutenant, I suppose ?—Just so. —Now tell the truth, sir, how did you first get possession of the malthouse ?—Why Richards got in through the window, and unbarred the door for me to get in.—Ah! that was your mode of taking possession. Pray, Mr. Graham, what business did you follow, before you became a watcher on coal-teams and a possessor of malthouses ? (Laughter.)—I was a plasterer by trade, and afterwards a police officer. Then I left that, to bet- ter myself, and was a watchman.—Oh, Mr. Graham, were you convicted of bigamy ?—The witness appeared amazed, and with great warmth appealed to the Court, to know if he might be allowed to clear his character from this foul and atrocious libel. —The Chairman (smiling): Oh, just as you please.—Graham, with great haste Then this was it, sir. I joined the army in 1813, and just before I had my discharge, my adjutant wickedly seduced a young lady to his quarters, against the wish of her parents; and when he left the barracks for a short time, she saw me, and fell in love with me, and left his quarters and came to mine; and then when I got my discharge, she came with me to Monmouthshire. So the adjutant got vexed, and sent down some false lines," and got me prosecuted for bigamy in this very eourt, my lord, but I was acquitted honourably. (There was an uncontrollable roar of laughter here.) The witness then went on to say that although the defendants got merry, after they made their forcible entry, drank ale, smoked, and sang, he didn't join 'em. They used no violence, nor attempted to turn out witness and his phalanx of three.—His Lordship here stopped the case, saying there was no legal sustainment of the first two counts of the indictment. There was merely a trivial assault. As to the right of possession, of course he would make no remark on that point—that was a question for another court.—A long argument followed between the Court and the three gentlemen of the long robe, Mr. Rickards main- taining he could prove the pistol said to have been presented by Lewis was not loaded, and therefore no assault had been committed; the Chairman saying that merely pointing a pistol at a person was an assault; the junior counsel, Mr. Barratt— whose forensic abilities promise great excellence—urging an ingenious and novel view, that as an assault was constituted only by intent and ability to commit, so no assault existed in this case, since there could be no intent, as there was no ability— the pistol being unloaded; and Mr. Daniel expressing his con- viction, with all deference to the chairman's opinion, that the iirst count was sustained. The case, however, was stayed, and the Chairman summed up to the jury. expressing his sense of the impropriety of taking possession of disputed property, by force of arms, since serious collisions, injury to property, and the disturbance of the public peace, were too frequently the results. His Lorship informed the jury that they might find a verdict of Acquittal against the defendants on the first two counts, and of Guilty on the last (assault).—Verdict accord- ingly. Sentence—Mr. Lewis to pay 5s. to the Queen, entering into his own surety of £10" and one other in the same sum, to keep the peace towards James Graham and all her Majesty's lieges for six months and the other defendants were fined Is. each, to prevent—his Lordship told them—their being troubled with further proceedings, and bound in their own recognizances of £10, each, to keep the peace, &c. James Morris and Griffith Morgan were charged with assault ing a police officer named Thomas Pratt, in the execution of his duty, on the 9th of June, 1845.—Mr. Rickards said the de- fendants had been indicted with another, at the June Sessions, for this offence, when the other defendant was fined .)8., and if the defendants at the bar—who had pleaded guilty—were fined in the same amount, the ends of justice would be satisfied.— The fine was cheerfully paid. There were no further cases on the calendar; and at eight o'clock the eloquent voice of the pleader, the solemn words of judgment and doom, the repentant appeal or threat of defiance, and the frantic, piercing shriek of despair from some wretched mother, sister, or wife, or the shout of welcome back to liberty, were no longer heard in the deserted hall."