Symud i'r prif gynnwys
Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

3 erthygl ar y dudalen hon



ANGLESEY ASSIZES. Lord Justice Bramwell boarded her II.M. gun- boat (i.bhaw/c, now stationed in the Menai Straits, on ilc.L lay morning, and proceeded with her to Bcacirsiaris, where she arrived early in the after- noon. His lordship was met at the landing-place by the High-Sheriff (Mr George T. Meyrick, Bod- oi'gri: the Under-Sheriff (;)1:r Pritchard, Llwyd- iarth Eagob), aad a retinue of javelin men The court having been opened, his lordship attended divine service at the parish church, where the as- size sermon was preached by the Rev. Mr Grif- tith. rector of Llangadwaladr (the high-sheriff's cl'.aplair.). TUESDAY. H: lordship took his seat on the bench of the old ej.irt-house shortly after ten o'clock on Tues- day morning. The usual proclamation against vice and immorality having been read, the following geiit.I men were einpaiiii on the GRAXII JUUV -Sir Richard M. W. Bulkeley, Bart, (foreman), 'b',I.a-or- General H-Lig-lies, Dr Robert Brisco Owen, Col. Robert Bramston Smith, Messrs Robert .Tone- Hughes, Richard Davies, M.P., John Z, Wynne Paynter, Col. Hampton Lewis, Mr Robert Davies, Capt. Pritchard Rayner, Mr W. H. Owen, Capt. Warren E. Evans, Capt. C. G. Duff. Messrs Hugh Edwards, Robert Wynne Jonas, John Bodvchan Sparrow, William Parry LewLo. Henry Herbert Williams, Thomas Ed- ward Lloyd, David Morgan, Henry Brassey Mitchell, Thomas Warner, J. R. Davies, and Robert Roberts. THE JUDGE'S CHARGE: IE his charge to the grand jury, his lordship said tiiat the calendar was not a very bad one, un- less they compared it with the calendars of the three conn+ie- he had previously visited in this circuit. It certainly did not compare well, as they had so mm y prisoners in the calendar as the whole of the three counties he had visited. It was a remark- able tiling—and it would be gratifying to them— gentlemen of the Principality-to know that in the rlrst county he visited:tlie only prisoner com- mitted tor trial was acquitted; that in the next countv the prisoners were not natives of Wales; and tfiat in the third county, the only prisoner whose name appeared in the calendar was ac- quitted on the ground of insaniry. He.thought it was gratifying that there should be three counties with such a gratifying result. They had in their Calendar four prisoners—at least four persons charged. Certainly, two of the offences charged Were Tetv shocking ones, and especially the first on the calendar. This was a case which would IC- quire i considerable amount of care upon their part. It was v. cha-ge against a father of com- mitti:v» a rape upon his own daughter. The latter swore that the offence was committed several time-, upon the same occasion, and she was con- ftnntl to a certain extent—considerably con- iftrm-d-by a woman who also lived in the adjoining house, and was in fact under the same roof. This woma-i tated that she heard expressions on the part of the child which indicated that that offence was committed, and which tl. c, child had sworn to. The statements made by the child were also con- firmed by the medical man, who deposed to certain appearances such as would be seen if such an offence had been committed. Still, if she were not so young, and not the -of the person charged, lie should doubt whether a conviction would be safe, because her conduct was not that of a female who felt that a great injury had been inflicted upon her. According to the evidence, after the first offence, when the prisoner got into her bed, she continued there, and did not attfi-pt to get out or to go away. The offence Was repeated twice, and she still remained there, and according to her own account slept placidly. She made no complaint to anybody. The offence Wa. repeated on the second night, and on the next1 day she would not, according to her own statement, have-made a iy complaint had it not been that a neighbour charged her with it. Then she told the truth. Rape was a crime which, depended on the oath of the woman injured. The woman next door gave this account. She said that she was the best possible friend of the pri- soner. and that the reason why she brought this forward was that she knew he had committed the offence before. It was extraordinary that this woman should have continued to be friendly, and he questioned whether any jury would convict if a person upon whom it was alleged the offence had been committed had been an adult person and not the daughter of the prisoner and had that been so, he should have cautioned them against finding a true bill, because they saw that unfortunately persona would listen to such cases with the greatest eagerness, and because there was no doubt s*tch cases put ideas into people's heads and led them to commit crimes which otherwise would not l've been heard of. There were cases in which, it were better that they should not be tried, but he could not advise them to throw out the bill upon this occasion because the prosecutrix was a child and not an adult person. Under these cir- cumstances, they could not expect the same con- duct they would from an adult worn™ not con- nected with the prisoner. Therefore, taking into account these things which would be improbabili- ties if the person makipgthe charge were an adult, and taking into account that she was his daughter, and therefore unwilling to bring any charge against him, and of such tender years that she was not i'-Kcrlv to be aware of the nature of the offence comr. :tted, he thought they should, unless they came to the conclusion that it would, be kopeless and impossible to expect that the petty jurv Wo«m convict, • find a true bill. The 'girl swor taat the offence was coiiiiii tted the surgeon stat'-fri that some violence had been attempted and t statements were corroborated by the evi- dent" of the neighbour. If they thought that this case T/.ust come before the petty jury—and he was far from saying that thpy ought not to think so- then tiisv would find a true bill. The next case was so bad, but it was really a shocking charge againsr two. prisoners, man and wife. It seems that rite jrrisoner Evan Jones spread abroad a chars; which was followed against his brother, Richard Jones, the result being that the latter was brought, before the magistrates. The prisoner Evan Jones then swore that he saw his brother do a variety of things which indicated that he had committed, or attempted to commit, the crime c--f beastialitv. Had the magistrates been satisfied with the evidence of the prisoner, they would have been bound to send Richard Jones to take his trial there that dal, but to the contrary, they were satisfied that what he said was utterly false, and committed him to take his trial for perjury. Wit- nesses would be called to deny the allegations of the prisoner, and if the grand' jury were satisfied that he wilfully and corruptly perjured himself they would bring in a true bill against him. Mar- garet Jones, who W;f; committed for a similar off was the wife of Evan Jones, and the same observations were applicable to her as well. There was another case that of a police-sergeant, Owen Hughes. The Pfii c(. e,lilt charged a man named John Stanley with assault-in-■ him and oh-' stracring him in the execution of his duty. and alleged that Stanley struck or kicked, or did both, or endeavoured to strike him. Hughes was now charged with the commission of perjury, aud they had now to consider whether they would find a true bill against him. He did not know how many witnesses there were on the depositions, but he thought there were twenty, who positively swore that there was a row between Stanley and another person and many of them positively swore that ther were there from the beginning of the row to the*end,, that they never los, sight of Stanley, ana that he was never nearer to Hughes than five feet, which was almost near enough for a blow with an additional step further. The witnesses, however, positively swore that Stanley never touched Hughes nor attempted to strike or k ck him. Of course, he need not tell them that before a man course, he need not tell them that before a man could be convicted of perjury, the pett-- jury must be satisfied not only that the statements of the prisoner were false, and tl-w, !zl,:Illd jury must see that there was sufficient evidence of conuption before they brought in a true bill. But if they found that the statements were untrue then unless there was some reason to believe it was a mistake, they must take it that it was made wilfully. It might be that when the prisoner's case came to be heard, the prisoner would be able to show either that what lie said was not false, or if false he might under the circumstances reasonably think that it was true. But lie did not see how the prosecutor in his evid- ence before them could negative all sorts of pro- babilities. The prisoner might show some parti- cular in which what he said might be true. He was inclined to think from what he had heard that this case had been talked about, and had Excited a great deal of interest; but they must be governed b,r the evidence. Without presuming to instruct them,—for they must judge for themselves—he was inclined to think that the right thing would be for them to find a true bill. The grand jury having been discharged to their duties, found tine bills against Evan Jones, and Margaret Jones, Ty Newycld, Llanddyfnan, for perjury. SERIOUS CHARGE OV WILFUL PERH'RY 1IKAVY SENTENCE. Evan Jones, 29, labourer, Ty Newyrld. Llan- ddyfnan, was indicted for committing wilful and corrupt perjury in giving evidence in the case of Richard Jones, his brother, heard at Beaumaris Petty Sessions on the 12th June last. Mr Ignatius Williams (instructed by Mr J. Rice Roberts) prosecuted, and Mr Marshall (instructed by Messrs Turner and Allanson) defended. Mr Williams having opened on behalf of the prosecution by referring to the facts of the case, called Mr Robert Jones Roberts, solicitor and manag- ing clerk to Sir J. Rice Roberts, clerk to the justices in the Beaumaris Division, deposed to having taken the depositions of the prisoner at the magistrates' meeting held at Beaumaris on the 12th June last. The evidence was taken down in writing, and afterwards read over to the prose- cutor, who affixed his mark thereto. His evidence, which was read by Mr Roberts, was to the effect that on the evening of the 24tli April last, Richard Jones came home from Llangefni partly the worse for drink. Prisoner followed him to the stable, and through a crack between the door- post and wall saw him attempt to commit an unnatural offence with his mare. Richard Jones, the prisoner's brother, was next examined. He denied having ever committed the offence attributed to him by his brother, and that he was drunk when he came home on the evening in question from Llangefni, where he had been purchasing nails. The mare was a vicious animal. The prisoner owed him a sum of money, and he had entered proceedings against him in the county court for the recovery of the same. Martha Jones, the mother of both prisoner and prosecutor, said that she accompanied the latter to the stable on the evening of the 24th of April last, with the view to feed the mare. The caudle went out, and witness proceeded to the house to fetch another one, but was not absent but for only a few minutes. She had not noticed her son Richard committing the offence attributed to him by the prisoner. The former was not drunk that evening, but he might have had a glass at Llangefni. 0' Cross-examined by Mr Marshall: She did not state before the magistrates that the door was shut when she went to the stable on the second occasion. All that she said was that the door was partly closed, and that she pushed it in. Benjamin Jones, another son of the last witness, deposed that on a certain Wednesday he remem- bered his brother Richard coming home from Llangefni, and proceeding to the stable, soon fol- lowed by his mother. Witness did not notice any signs of drink upon him. He knew that the prisoner owed a sum of money to Richard, and had heard him say that it would be better for the latter not to insist upon payment, otherwise he would certainly revenge upon him. This conversation took place on the 10th May, when the prisoner further informed witness as to the alleged un- natural offence. I William Jones, another brother, together with William Thomas, gave evidence as to the condition of the stable at the time of the alleged offence. Both denied that there was an opening between one of the door-posts and the door, adding that :t was impossible for anyone from the outside to see what 4 was going on inside. Richard Jones, recalled, said that he was first informed of the accusation made against him on the Wednesday following Ascension Thursday. He then went to the prisoner, and demanded an ex- planation, but he made no reply. This being the case for the prosecution. Mr Marshall addressed the jury at considerable length, pointing out that it was quite as possible for the prisoner to have made a mistake as it was for the witnesses called for the prosecution to have made a mistake bv stating that there was no aperture through which transactions inside the stable would be seen on the 24th April. If there was any doubt in the minds of the jury—and he thought there was a very great doubt—the benefit of the same ought to be given to the prisaner. His Lordship deferred sentence, and proceeded with the charge of perjury against Margaret Jones, the wife of the prisoner in the last ease. In reply to the ellar-e- the prisoner Margaret Jones said "I did not say an untruth, as I did not see him (meaning Richard Jones) do anything out^of place. I did not say an untruth as to what I saw." His Lordship therefore ordered her to plead not guilty." Mr Williams prosecuted, and Mr Mar- shall defended. The evidence in this case was similar to that oiven during the hearing of the previous charge, with the exception that the prisoner, when before the magistrates, had deposed to having seen Richard Jones placing some wood across the door of the stable, and undress certain portions of his clothes.. Mr Marshall, addressing the jury for the defence, urged that the female prisoner had no motive whatever in perjuring herself, and that, probably, she mi "lit be acting under coercion in giving evidence against Richard Jones. His Lordship having addressed the jury, pri- soner was found guilty, but, strongly recommended to mercy, as it was thought she might have acted under li'er husband's coercion.. In sentencing the male prisoner, his Lords aip said You have been guilty of an enormous crime. If you had not taken your oath on it, and deposed to it in'a court of justice, it would have been a most wicked and detestable thing to bring such a charge against your own brother, from the motive that you liid. But in addition to the wickedness of briii-iii, such a charge as this, you have sworn to it upon your solemn oath in a court of justice wit.i the view to bring punishment upon him, and if you had succeeded in the object you had in view, he might have been sent to penal servitude for life and if'that law which is proposed had come into existence, you might have probably received a similar sentence. As it is, I can only sentence you to as long a term as I can, and that is seven years penal servitude. His Lordship deferred the sentence upon the female prisoner. THE ALLEGED RAPE AT JV.VVKAN. The grand jury ignored the bill against Hugh Jones, labourer, Groes, Dwyran, who was com- mitted fif trial on the 4th June for ravishing his daughter Hannah Jones, aged thirteen. The prisoner was accordingly discharged. SELTLOUF? CHARGE AGAINST A 3'OLICE SEKGEANT. JUDICIAL CENSURE rroy MAGISTRATES. Owen Hughes, a sergeant of police stationed, at Beaumaris, surrendered to his bail, and was in- dicted for having on the 12tli June last, committed wilful and corrupt perjury iir his evidence as a witness in the hearing of a certain information at a petty sessions held at Beaumaris on that date. The prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was de- fended by Mr Coxon (instructed by Mr J. W. Hughes). Mr Marshall (instructed by Mr R. Dew) prosecuted. Having opened the case for tire prosecution, Mr Marshall called J. W. Hughes, a clerk in the em- ploy of Mr John Rice Roberts, clerk to the magis- trates in the Beaumaris petty sessional division, who deposed that on the 11th June last,, the prisoner Hughes came to the office, and laid an information against a person named John Stanley. At the prisoner's suggestion witness wrote out a warrant (produced) which bore the signature of Capt. Duff, a county magistrate. Capt. C. R. Duff, Red Hill, Beaumaris, said he recollected Sergeant Hughes coining to his house with the warrant, which was signed by witness. At the time the charge against the prisoner was heard before the magistrates witness was under the impression that he had sworn Hughes before sign- ing tli.3 warrant, but he now believed that he did not do so. Mr Coxon observed that according to the Act of Parliament a warrant issued without an oath was void.—This fact led to a discussion between his Lordship and couiisel, the former calling attention to the illegal manner in which the- war- rant had been issued, adding that he really did not see anything against the witness being proceeded with for false imprisonment.—Mr Coxon contended that inasmuch as the warrant under which the person Stanley was arrested, the proceedings before the magistrates fell through, as did also the present proceedings.—His Lordship said that he could not stop the case upon that objection. It would therefore go on but he would further con- sider the legal obj cctions raised by Mr Coxon- Mr Robert Jones Roberts, solicitor and managing clerk to Mr J. Rice Roberts, was next examined. He deposed to having attended Beaumaris petty sessions in the capacity of magistrate's clerk on the 12th June last, when John Stanley was charged with having assaulted Sergeant Hughes, the de- fendant, on the 10th. Evidence was given by the defendant in support of the charge. --The minute book of the court not being at hand, the further ex- amination of the witness was deferred. William Edwards, a young man employed at the Beaumaris Slate Works, said that on the 10th June, he was in Stanley's company from 4.30 p.m. till he went to bed. Witness was with him at the Bulkeley Arms Hotel Restaurant at 8.30 p.m. Holland Williams, who was partly in drink, was there. The latter was turned out of the house, when a crowd of militiamen assembled together. Stanley got out after Williams, who had chal- lenged him to Stanley went several feet from the door. The militiamen knew him. Whilst witness was standing near the steps, the defendant, Sergeant Hughes, same up, but not near than four or five feet. Witness did not see the latter hold Stanley, neither had he heard him say anything to him. It was not true that Stanley said to Hughes Let me go." They did not struggle. Stanley did not try to kick Hughes, and it was not true that some militiamen took the former from the latter's grasp. The militiamen only interfered to prevent the fight. The officer took Holland Wil- z, liams to the police station, and witness accom- panied Stanley home. Cross-examined by Mr Coxon: Witness was a cousin to Stanley. The row took place somewhere between h;At'-past eight and nine o'clock. It was not half-past nine o'clock at the time. Witness denied being the worse for drink after coming from the restaurant. The row took place under the archway, near the restaurant door. There was a little noise there at the time. Witness tried to prevent Stanley from fighting with Williams. After Willitri. had been taken to the police station, Sergeant Hughes returned, and stood opposite to Stanley, who was then putting his coat on. The officer did not say anything, but only stared and went away. When called as a witness before the magistrates, witness said that he helped to carry Stanley home, but he could have walked home if he hked. Thomas Hughes and two militiamen assisted to RTrry Stanley away. This was after the defendant had conveyed Holland Wil- liams to the lock-up, which is about ten yards from the restaurant. Witness did not see Stanley with the defendant at all. By the Judge: I never had a quarrel with Sergeant Hughes, the prisoner. Mr R. Jones Roberts now produced the minute:" of the magisterial proceedings h ld at Beaumaris on the 12th June. The evidence then given by Sergt Hughes was taken down in writing by wit- ness, and was as follows:—"I was on duty at. Beaumaris and saw John Stanley and Holland Williams coming from the restaurant stripped. I held Stanley and asked him to go home. He re- plied, 'Let me go,' and struck me in my .chest with his right hand. We struggled; the defen- dant tried to hit and kick me until some militia- men released him from my grasp. I then let him alone. The defendant made a great row inside the restaurant." His Lordship: And did he get six months for that?- Yes. Mr Marshall: Did Sergeant Hughes show any bruises ?—No., Mr Coxon: (examining the minute book) I see the heading is "assaulting the police, and also "drunk and riotous." There is nothing about being drunk and riotous in the warrant, is there ? —No. How came you to put drunk and riotous" down then f- The usual practice is for the police- man to state the charge, which is written down as a heading. In reply to Mr Marshall, witness said that Stanley was not convicted for drunkenness and riotous conduct. His Lordship: Was any evidence called to show that Stanley was a bad character, or that he had been previously convicted ? Witness: inspector Davic^, Menai Bridge, proved a former conviction of drunkenness aud riot- ous conduct against him, as well as a conviction at Menai Bridge petty sessions for assaulting P.C. Hugh Williams. His Lordship: Is Beaumaris a very riotous placef-No, but I have heard that at times raws occur here wheN. the militiamen are about. The inhabitants are generally peaceable people. His Lordship remarked lie thought that had it not been for those rowjf Beaumaris would be the most exemplary place in the world. The witness Owen Edwards was re-called by Mr Coxon, in reply to whom he said that Stanley was being sentenced when he (witness) attended the petty sessions. Witness did not then know the nature of the charge preferred against Stanley. He afterward's saw the latter's father, and spoke to him about the row. By Mr Marshall: I am a militiaman, and was on parade that day. In reply to his Lordship, Mr Marshall said that Stanley was now undergoing a term of imprison- ment for assaulting the police-officer. It would be very desirable to call him as a witness. His Lordship agreed with Mr Marshall, and made an order for Stanley's appearance to give evidence. The learned judge farther condemned the practice of arresting a man under a warrant when, that person is a resident of the town, with no danger of his absconding. In cases of this sort, policemen ought to issue the usual summons, and not arrest a man under a warrant Margaret .Tones, wife of John Jones, sailor, Beaumaris, said that she recollected passing the Bulkeley Arms Restaurant on the evening of Whitmdnday, when she saw Stanley sitting on the door-step. A crowd of people had assembled to- gether at the time. The prisoner Hughes came up from under the arch, and. towards the crowd. Holland Williams, who had been creating a dis- turbance, was taken to the lock-up by Sergeant Hughes. Witness remained there until the latter returned. Stanley was then standing five to six feet from the officer. She coald have seen Stanlev assault the officer had he done so. She did not see him strike Hughes at all. Cross-examined by Mr Coxon: I am not related to Stanley. By the Judge I did not see anyone strike nor kick the officer. At this juncture.of the proceedings, his lordship announced he would hear no more witnesses that day, and the court was accordingly adjourned. WEDNESDAY. The business of the assizes was resumed at ten o'clock a.m., when the charge of perjury, preferred against Owen Hughes, a police-sergeant stationed at Beaumaris, was proceeded with. Mr Marshall prosecuted, and Mr Coxon defended. The follow- iug- witnesses were- examined for the prosecu- tion — Ebenezer Owen, sailor, Beaumaris, deposed that on the night of Whit-Monday he witnessed a dis- turbance in the vicinity of the Bulkeley Arms Hotel Restaurant. lIe saw the defendant Hughes standing there. Stanley was within five or six feet to him. Stanley neither touched, kicked, struck, nor struggled with Sergt. Hughes. He was perfectly sober. John Stanley, the young cab-driver now under- going a term of imprisonment for an alleged assault upon Hughes, was next examined. He said that on the evening of Whit-Monday, he was at the Bulkcley Arms Hotel and saw Holland Williams there drunk. The latter asked him to come out and fight. Witness waited two or three minutes, pulled off his coat and waistcoat, and then went outside. Holland Williams was brandishing his arms about at the time Hughes the police-sergeant, came up. Before witness could give Holland Williams a blow, a lot of militiamen came to the spot, and tookhold of him. They carried him towards the arch. When lie got to Rating Row, he found he had lost his watch in the row, and returned in the direction of the res- taurant. When he got opposite the hotel, Sergt. Hughes and another person asked him if he was going home. Witness said he had lost his watch. He also placed his hand on Hughes' shoulder, and made the same remark t him. The polic- sergant replied All right," and then went away. He denied having struck Hughes, nor touched him, beyond placing his hand on his shoulder. No one took hold of witness but the militiamen. Thomas Hughes, a butcher, told witness he would have to go to Carnarvon to get Carnarvon beef, and witness replied he could do so. This conver- This conversation took place in the front of the restaurant. Sergeant Hughes never offered to c' take witness into custody at the time, but did so on the following day, under a warrant for drunkenness and disorderly conduct, and for assaulting the police. When arrested by the officer, the latter asked if he knew what he had done, and he replied "No." The sergeant then said, You gave me a blow in my breast." Witness denied having done so. On the following morning, witness was taken before the magistrates, but had previously had no opportunity to see his friends so as to prepare a defence. After stating the charge, Hughes took witness to the lock-up, and closed the trap-door. In the morning, witness asked Hughes if he would take a note for him. The officer replied, "If I do, perhaps your brother will kick me, or your mother will humbug me." Cross-examined by Mr Coxon The note was sent to Margaret Ishmael. Witness did not send it to his mother, because he knew she would be so much upset in consequence of the affair. All that he wanted Margaret Ishmael to do was to send him a good breakfast. In reply to the Judge; witness said that he fouad his coat afterwards near the restaurant. By Mr Coxon: There had been no previous quar- rel between me and Hughes. I have been con- victed on a previous occasion for assaulting the police. His Lordship You put your hand on the police- man's shoulders. You might do that in a friendly way to anybody. Upon your oath, did you strike him that llight ( Witness Upon the biggest oath I can get in the Bible, I did not, sir. Did you kick him ?—No sir. I nevei tried to do so. Did vou do anything or try tb do anything that the policeman could have mistaken for a blo .v or a kick r—No, sir, there was nothing between him and me. You swear that ? Yes, I swear it. You had no struggle with him f-No, sir. Suppose he wanted to take you into custody at that time when you said you had lost your watch, was there anything to prevent No, sir. I would have gone with him. When you were before the magistrates, you had no solicitor had you to defend vou F-N, o, sir, I had no time to get a solicitor, or I would have had one. Thomas Owen, qnarryman, Aber, said lie was one of the militiamen present in the vicinity of the restaurant- on the evening of Whit-Monday. Stanley did not strike Sergeant Hughes, or inter- fere with him in any way. William Edwards, re-called b- his lordship, cor- roborated Stanley's evidence with reference to the putting of his hand on the officer's shoulder when he complained of having lost his wsatch. Witness was out of court whilst Stanley was being exam- ined, and no one had informed him of what lie had said. Thomas Jones (joiner), Margaret Davies, Owen Hughes (bookseller s assistant), and John Jones (Rosemary Lane), gave similar evidence, all deny- ing that Stanley had touched or obstructed Sergt. Hughes in any way on the evening of Whit- I Monday. This "concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr Coxon then addressed the jury for the de- fence. He said he was not there to defend the defendant's conduct in arresting the young man Stanley under a warrant, iiist." I of in the first place summoning him before the magistrates but he (the learned counsel) appeared there to defend him from the serious charge of having wilfully committed the serious crime of perjury. In the other cases of perjury heard by the jury a motive on the part of the accused persons had been shown; but in the present case, the evidence against the defendant showed no motive whatever, and if there was no motive there could be uo real offence. He appealed to the jury why the police- sergeant should bring forward, without some sergeant should bring forward, without some foundation, a false charge against any person, without no quarrel, ill-will, or any reason what- ever. Such a thing was incredible it would be the act of a madman to bring such a charge, from which he would derive no benefit whatever, but rather imperil himself. There was a deal of dis- crepancy in the evidence called by the prosecution, and this led him to ask was it not possible for the officer to commit a mistake. He appealed to the jury to disregard entirely the sentence passed upon Stanley, and the irregularity of the proceedings in arresting him under a warrant. If there existed a doubt in the minds pf the jury as to whether the defendant had made a mistake, he hoped they would give the benefit of the same to him, and ac- quit him. The following gentlemen were then called to give evidence with reference to the defendant's character Dr Robert Wynne Jones said that in his capacity of Mayor of Beaumaris lie had every opportuiiity to become acquainted with the character and con- duct of Sergt. Hughes, whom he had always found to be a truthful and He (Dr Wynne Jones) thought Hughes would be the last man to 'tell a lie, on oath or otherwise. He had been stationed at Beaumaris for about twelve months. Witness had heard of his character before coming there, and lie had been told it was very good. 0 The Rev Richard W. Griffith, high-sheriff's chaplain, deposed that he was acquainted with the prisoner, whom lie had always found to do his duty conscientiously, considerately, and kindly. Mr Pritchard, Llwydiarth, the undersheriff, and magistrates' clerk at Valley, deposed that during the time the defendant was stationed at Abqrffraw he possessed the best character, being a truthful and straightforward man. Col. Thomas, the chief constable of Anglesey, said that he had known the defendant since he was appointed to the office now held by him. He was a person in whom he would place the most implicit trust. No complaint had been made against the defendant, and the police-book contained no mark against him.—His Lordship: Do you know what his character is among the lower order r- Witness: He performs his duty with extreme tact.—But I should like to know what is his character in the varicus strata of society? Very good.—Among the poorer people his character is good, then r-:Most undoubtedly. Mr John Rice Roberts, solicitor and magistrates' clerk, deposed to having known the defendant for five or six years, and he had always found him to be ir the best character for truthfulness, honesty, and, he thought, discretion as a police-officer. Mr Septimus Baker, Williams-Bulkeley Arms Hotel, called to give evidence as to character, said the defendant was a very good officer, honest and truthful, but rather strict. There were not so many rows in the town after he came there, as there used to be. Messrs J. Williams and Hugh Williams, farmers, Aberffraw, where the defendant was previously stationed, also gave evidense as to his good charac- ter. His Lordship, in summing up, said that there were some matters connected with the case which had excited the greatest surprise to himself, and, he thought, to the jury as well. He felt he should not be doing his duty if lie did not say that grievous irregularities and wrong things had been done in this county. The first irregularity was that after the bare application of the officer, without even pledging his oath to it. and even without a written information—to which h would be re- sponsible—upon mere word of mouth to the magistrates'clerk's clerk a warrant is granted to take up this unhappy man Stanley. The same thing might have occurred in like manner to any- one in the county, even to himself or anybody sitting on that benchor in court. The proceedings came to this. A police officer wants to take a man in custody; lie goes to the magistrates' clerk's clerk, and asks for a warrant, which is then given as a matter of course. The warrant is afterwards signed, and the man is apprehended. The whole proceedings under which this man was arrested attracted his gravest attention in fact, lie could hardly credit that such a thing could be done. It was clear that the magistrate signing the warrant had rendered himself liable to an action for false imprisonment, aud he should not be sorry to hear that sach an action had been brought, if only to teach the magistrates of the county that they had a solemn dut. to perform, and that they should dis- charge their obligation with the greatest care. They knew very well that when a person had com- mitted an offence, he might be summoned before the magistrates, unless the case is of that gravity that called for his immediate arrest lest he should run away. But the proper thing to do in other cases was not to arrest a person under a warrant, but to issue a summons against him There can be no doubt that in the present case the most, proper thing would have been to issue a summons, and not arrest the man Stanley under a warrant. There was no likelihood that he would run away because of such a charge as that preferred against him. The conduct of the defendant himself showed that he did not think Stanley would run away, because he did not arrest him on the first oppor- tunity. The warrant was n»t executed until thirty six hours after it had been signed by the magistrate. Another thing with which he had to express his disatisfaction was the manner in which Stanley had been deprived of the power to com- municate with his friends, and employ a solicitor to defend him. The next matter was that when the accused appeared before the magistrates, he was not asked what he had to say in answer to the charge. If he had been spoken to kindly, and taught to open his mouth and defend himself, he would probably have brought forward the same witnesses who had been now called to disprove the officer's statement. Nothing of the sort was done. Again, he could not but express his infinite sur- prise at the sentence passed—six months' impri- sonment with hard labour. Six months' hard labour He quite agreed with the necessity of protecting the police, but to sentence a man to six months' hard labour when the injured party was unable to shew a bruise, a mark, a ruffled shirt, torn coat, a broken hat, was, as the couusel for the defence had expressed it, quite indefensible. lie really felt bound to give expression upon this matter. Gentlemen taking upon themselves the honourable position of justices of the peace should really be more carefully in their way of dealing with those persons who are brought before them. whether those persons belonged to the humbler order or to the richer order. They should try every person as well as they could, and be satisfied that when they decided a case for or against the accused that they have done their best in the in- terests of truth. These, however, as Mr Coxen said, were matters which did not belong to the case against the defendant; he (the learned judge) only mentioned them because he thought it was his duty to do so. Referring to the charge against the defendant, his lordship said that all the jury to consider was whether the defendant was guilty of perjury or not. It was most important that they should all decide according to their con- soic ces, and not allow anything to influence their minds. His lordship then referred to the evidence given by the defendant before the magistrates, and to the evidence given by nine witnesses on the the present occasion, who were, he was bound to say, respectable persons. The present case was not one which might be termed a "running down" case, where, half a dozen witnesses were called on one side, and half a dozen on the other side. It was a case in which there were nine wit- nesses against none. As no witnesses had been called to show that defendant had been kicked and bruised, then his statement must be untrue. If the militiaman had rescued Stanley from the officer, why did he not summon them as well for doing so, no suggestion had been given to explain this. It did not matter whether there a motive could shown on the part of the defendant, as long as it was found he had committed the deed. His lordship next referred to the evidence given as to character. All those o-s- t gentlemen called were most respectable people, all of where strong- ly on the side of order. He should have been glad to see evidence being given as to the defendant's character among the poorer order but Mr Coxen had remarked it was rather hard to get witnesses for police officers who were actually disliked. The jury would take all these things into account. They must remember that Stanley and eight other persons, admitted to be honest and truthful, had swore to what it was difficult to suppose was false and they also must bear in minp that no witnesses were called on behalf of the defendant, and that there were some question- able matters in his conduct in getting a warrant der the circumstances. After a few more remarks, his lordship dismissed the jury to their duties. The jury, after about half an hour's consulta- tion. returned a verdict of guilty, strong! v recom- mending the defendant to mercy on account of his previous good character. Mr Coxon thereupon contended that the whole proceedings before the magistrates were invalid, the warrant upon which Stanley was apprehended having been granted upon an information not sworn before Captain Duff, the magistrate by whom the warrant was signed. His Lordship said that the defendant had been convicted upon uncontrovertible testimony, and that lie did not agree with the legal points raised. Sentence, however, would be deferred until the point had been settled by the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the defendant would be admitted to bail until next assizes in his personal recognisance of £ 100 and two sureties of £ -">0 each. His Lordship, addressing the defendant, said he was very sorry for him. He did not think the jury could have brought in another verdict. He would not pass sentence upon him now, as it was not certain whether tlr ro was a point of law in his favour. That point would be decided by the Court of Criminal Appeal. In the meantime the defendant would be liberated on bail. Mr Marshall made aii application that sentence be passed conditionally upon conviction being quashed cr confirmed. His Lordship said that he could not, unless the defendant would undergo the same. Mr Marshall remarked that difficulty would arise at the next assize if another judge would be on the circuit His Lordship said that, the judge coming to the circuit would receive a eonirnunieation from him as to what the proper punishment should be. THE TY NEWYDD J'ER.H'HY CASE. Margaret Jones, aged 33. who was found guilty on the previous day of perjury in a trial in which her husband charged his brother with an unnatural offence, for which he (the husband; was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude, was now brought up for sentence. Mr Marshall withdrew It-, application for a case to be decided by the Court of Criminal Appeal as to whether the proceedings against the prisoner were invalid because she had acted under the in- fluence of her husband. The prisoner had been in prison for six weeks, therefore, taking the recom- mendation of the jury into consideration, he strongly appealed to, his lordship to deal leniently towards her. s Addressing the prisoner, his lordship said that with the view to caution others lie reallv doubted whether he ought to send her to prison for two years with hard labour. She had brought a most cruel and false charge against her brother-in-law, with the most abominable motive but her husband had been severely punished—but not too much- and the jury strongly recommended her to mercy. As she had three children, and had been in gaol for six week, and also taking into consideration the recommendation of the jury to mercy, because they thought she had acted under her husband's influence, he only sentenced her to three months' imprisonment. He advised her never to repeat- such an offence. WILLIAMS V. JONES. This was a common jury cause, in which Mr Clement Lloyd (instructed by Mr G. W. Dew) was for the plaintiff. John Williams, Hen Trevor, Liar sad wm; and Mr Marshall (instructed by Messrs Turner and Allanson) for the defendant, Catherine Jones, Swan Inn, Llanfair. The action was for the recovery of £2(; 12s., arrears of rent, and a set off of £100 was pleaded. The jury found for the defendant. This concluded the businc-s of the assizes, and the court rose shortly after four o'clock. The hearing of the charge against Sergeant Hughes excited great local interest, autI the court was crowded to excess. We understand that Stanley was taken back to Carnarvon gaol, but as the committing magistrates, apparently recog- nising the very strong local opinion expressed against their harshness, have anticipated the re- sult of the present proceedings by memorialising the Home Secretary for the remission of his sentence, it is most probable that an order for his release will be immediately sent down. Upon the recommendation of the police committee, the ex- penses of the officer's defence have been defrayed by the county.

[No title]