The North Wales Express

CARNARVON. THE SOUP KITCHEN.-The Committee of the Soup Kitchen beg gratefully to acknowledge the following ifts A basket of leeks and turnips from Mr Morrison, Pool-street; half a sack of carrots from Mr Hayward, Pen-y-bryn; and a sack of turnips from Mr Humphreys, Royal Hotel. !&On Thursday evening, the 4th inst., a meeting of the Carnarvon branch of the Church of England Temperance Association was held in the National School-room. There was a large attendance. A miscellaneous programme was gone through, and twenty-four new members enrolled their names. Mr Henry Owen, Harbour Office, presided at the harmonium; and the singing of a hymn and prayer brought the meeting to a close. THE MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCE.—This week, the Chief Constable (Major Clayton) and several police officers have been scouring the neighbour- hoods of Balaclava-road and Ala Lis with the view of discovering the body of John Jones, South Pen'rallt, who disappeared under rather suspicious circumstances a few weeks ago. Four blood- hounds were employed, and the ground was dug in several places. The "Barracks" was also searched, but the efforts of the party were un- successful. "THE MBSBIAH.The arrangements for the grand performances by the Carnarvon Choral Union of Handel's Messiah are approaching com- pletion. We are given to understand that the supplemental band will consist of a select number of instrumentalists from Mr Charles Halle's band, and not as stated by us in our last issue. There is every reason to believe: that the musical treat which is in store for the public of this town and the surrounding. neighbourhood will doubtless excel anything that has hitherto been performed in Carnarvon. ARFON DEANERY CHURCH CHORAL UNION.—The choral festival of the above union will be held at Carnarvon on Easter Monday. The following choirs are expected to take part:—Christ Church, St. Mary's, St. David's, Llanbeblig, Carnarvon; Llanllyfni, Talysarn, Penygroes, Llanrug, Cwm-y. glo, Llanberis, Llandinorwig, Llanwnda, Llan- fagdalen, Rhostryfan, Saron, and Llanfairisgaer. The Very Rev the Dean of Bangor and the Rev D. Williams, B.D., Llandyrnog, will preach. The conductors will be the Rev T. L. Jones, B.A., Carnarvon, and the Rev O. Davies (Eos Llechid), Llanberis. SPECIAL SESSIONS.—At a special session held on Friday last at the Guild Hall, before the Ex-mayor (Mr W. P. Williams), Owen Griffith, of Bryngwran, Anglesey, was charged by P.C. 2 with being drunk in the borough on the previous day, and he was further charged with tearing the mattress in his cell. He was fined 2s 6d and costs for drunkenness, and 6d and 5s damages for tearing the mattress.—David Edwards, Crank," of Carnarvon, was charged with stealing a quantity of old iron from the gas works. Sergeant Jones said he received information of the theft on the previous afternoon, and found a sack full of old iron in prisoner's possession at Samuel Davies' marine store, where prisoner had taken it for sale. -Grilffih EOwen, who was employed at the gas works identified the iron, and prisoner was remanded until Monday. YOUTHFUL PROFESSIONAL BEGGARS.—During the hearing at Saturday's petty sessions of a charge of vagrancy, Capt. Wynn Griffith called attention to the increase of beggary. He said that there was a class of people who made it a regular profession to send out their children to beg. These child- ren, when they approached houses outside the town took off their shoes and left them in the read whilst they were begging. The scraps which they got were afterwards taken to town, where they were sold, and the money was given to the parents so as to procure drink. These children came regularly to his neighbourhood until, at his request, Sergt. Thomas stopped them. Mr Whitehead observed that he, too, had been an- noyed in a similar manner. The children pushed their way through the park, and had considerably injured snowdrops and other flowers. He had prevented them fromcoming up to the front, but now they found their way to the back by crossing the fields.-Capt. Griffith: I have been told that the police have offered a reward of £ 5 for the re- covery of a missing quarryman. I am now obliged to keep a man to watch the beach below m: house, as scores of people have been coming there, and one can't say what harm they might do to my property. This is owing to the £ 5 reward.—The bench expressed a hope that the police would see to this matter. SHEEP-STEALING AT GBOESLON.—A few months ago, a number of sheep were missed from several farms in the neighbourhood of Groeslon. The police were most energetic in their inquiries, and on the 30th December Sergt. Lewis Williams, Penygroes, and P.C. Powell succeeded in finding a clue to the affair. They proceeded to the house of one Robert Williams, Tai'r-cwrt, Groeslon, and the search resulted in their issuing a summons for larceny against that person, who was to appear before the magistrates on the 3rd of January to answer a charge of stealing sheep belonging to Ellis Jones, Dafamdudiarth, Groeslon, Mr John Lloyd Jones' farm bailiff. He did not come for- ward, and when a warrant was issued for his ap- prehension it was found that he had absconded. P.C. Powell was therefore instructed to keep strict watch upon the movements of the wife of the accused. The house furniture was sold, and she was seen to remove from one place to another in the neighbourhood, until she finally disappeared on. Tuesday last. The officer, however, was on the alert, and traced her to Afonwen, Penrhyn- deudraeth, Machynlleth, and Moat-lane Junction. During his stay at the latter place he found cut that a woman answering Jto her description had booked for Dowlais, and he proceeded there aft once. The police authorities of that place were communicated with, and through the Assistance of inspector iiodman and another officeri. Powell arrested the accused at 15, Victoria-street, whence he was safely conveyed to Carnarvon. He was taken before a magistrate on Monday, and was remanded till Saturday. Credit is due to Powell, the police officer, for the able manner in which he effected the capture of the prisoner.

COUNTY MAGISTRATES' COURT, SATURDAY. —Before Mr Whitehead (in the chair), and Capt. Wynn Griffith. Imbriatoo.-Charges of drunkenness were proved against the following persons, who were fined in the undermentioned sums Robert Williams ("Uanber"), Tabernacle-street, Ebenezer, 10s and costs; William Owen, do., 2s 6d and costs; William Lewis, do., 108 and costs; and Wm. Williams, Llanllyfni, 2s 6d and costs. A Steam Engine Nuisance at Groulon.- Wiliam Owen, proprietor of the Groeslon Sawing Works, was summoned for working a steam engine too close to the road. The case was adjourned for a fortnight, in order to enable the defendant to erect a suitable building over the engine. Alleged Assault by a Railway Porter.-Evan Jones, a porter employed at the Pontrhythallt Railway Station, was charged with assaulting William Hughes, a young sawyer, residing in the neighbourhood of Penisa'rwaen, and for whom Mr Allanson appeared. From the evidence of the complainant and several other witnesses it appears that the accused took hold of Hughes whilst he was procuring a ticket and threw him down with- out assigning any reason for doing so. It was contended on the. other hand that Hughes had pushed forward .to the. wrong side of the ticket- booth, and had demanded a ticket. The porter was instructed by the stationmaster to secure order by removing him from that place, and this was all that the former did.—The bench observed that people behaved very disorderly in rural rail- way stations, and they dismissed the case because they thought that the complainant had conducted himself improperly. Poaching on the Vaynol.Estate.-William Edward Williams, a young soldier, was charged with poaching on lands belonging to. Mr Assheton Smith on the 7th of February, 1879, and also on the 24th of April; 1879. It appears that the de- fendant absconded and joined the army. Whilst on furlough, he visited his native pl"e,-Eben- —ftnd was apprehended under a warrant. The accused informed the bench that his furlough expired on the following day, and it was necessary for him to join his regiment on Monday. Taking this fact into consideration, the bench dismissed the case, conditionally that he would come up to receive judgment when called upon. ( More Brutality at Ebenezer.—John Davies, alias Niwlff," Battery, Ebenezer, and Morgan Owen, Tabernacle-street, in the same village, were sum- moned for being drunk on the previous Saturday. Davies was further charged with committing a brutal assault upon Morgan Owen. From the evidence of Sergeant Owen Thomas it appears that both men were drunk and fighting, and that during the scuffle John Davies seized Morgan Owen's thumb, and bit him severely. It was stated that Davies, who is an old offender, had already been punished for committing a serious assault. He had also been drummed out of the 23rd regiment for brutal conduct. The bench fined him 5s and costs for drunkenness, and sen- tenced him to a month's hard labour for commit- ting the assault. Morgan Owen was also fined 5s and costs for drunkenness. Alleged Theft of a Gamecook.-William Owen, quarryman, Pant-du, Llanberis, was charged with stealing a cock of the Hamburg gold-pencilled breed, value 7s 6d, the property of Jane Hughes, Cefn Bach, Llandinorwig. D.C.C. Prothero con- ducted the prosecution on behalf of the police, and the accused was defended by Mr Allanson. Com- plainant said that she was the wife of John Hughes, stonemason. On the evening of the 9th of January last, she went to bed between ten and eleven o'clock, and left the fowls in the roosting- place. After sleeping for some time, she was aroused by a man who made "an ugly noise" and knocked the bed-chamber window. He also shouted, Open the door." She did not know him. When she got downstairs on the fol- lowing morning, she found that a cock of the "Castell" breed was missing. She identified the gamecock produced as her property. When the officer brought the cock home, it ran through a hole in the wall into the garden, and appeared to be at home (laughter). The bird ate, and also called upon the hens (renewed, laughter).—Mr Prothero: And they were great friends?—Com- plainant Yes indeed; it behaved just as if it had never been from home (loud laughter). -Mr Pro thero And it went to roost that night, as usual ? —Complainant: Yes; it always used to go to the back of the house, and to hop through a hole in the wall into the garden.-Sergt O. Thomas, Ebenezer, said that on the first of March he went to the house of the accused, and asked whether he had any fowls. He replied" Yes; but the cock is a game one." Witness asked did he know whether there were any fowls of the "Castell" breed in the neighbourhood. The accused replied "I don't think there are any except those of William Hughes', Tyhen." Witness found the cock in the possession of Evan Williams, Ceunant Coch, Lla-nberis. -Evan Williams said that early in January last, he spoke to the defendant about purchasing a cock of the "Castell" breed. The defendant said that he would try and get him one, adding that a fellow-workman knew where there were two. William Owen brought the cock on the 13th of January, and witness gave him 2s 6d for it. He afterwards gave the bird to Sergt. Tkomag. -Cross -examined: When the purchase was made, the defendant said that he had bought the cock of a person named Morris William Hughes. -Mr Allanson contended that the defendant was perfectly innocent, as he had purchased the cock for the witness Evan Williams.—Hugh Morris Hughes was called as a witness for the defence.- He admitted having sold a cock to the defendant on the 13th of January, but it was not the one which was found in the possession of Evan Wil- liams. That cock had a dark breast, and it had been sold to him on the 9th of January by Robert Williams, Pentir. Witness admitted having taken the cock to the "Machine," in the quarry, on the 13th of January, and that several persons were present when the defendant took it away.—Five witnesses were called to prove that Morris Wil- liam Hughes sold a cock to the defendant on the 13th of January, but neither of them could swear that it was the one produced in court. They were inclined to think that the cock taken away by the defendant was of a darker colour.—The bench adjourned the case for a week, in order that the police might make further inquiries.—During the hearing of the case, the complainant "nursed" the cock in an amusing manner.

BOROUGH MAGISTRATES' COURT, MONDAY. Before the Mayor (Alderman Lewis), and the Ex-mayor (Mr W. P. Williams). Drunkenness. Rowland Thomas, labourer lodging in Pool-side, was fined 5a and costs for drunkenness on Sunday morning.—A fine, of 2s 6d and costs was imposed on Robert Hughes, plas- terer, South Penrallt, for over-indulging in in- toxicating drink. In paying the moBey defendant threatened to retaliate by "fining" all police officers whom he would meet drinking in public-houses whilst on duty. Throwing Ashes.-Margaret Roberts,JGreengate- street, was summoned for throwing ashes before the house. The case was dismissed on payment of costs, and the bench observed that great com- plaints were being made about the number of manure heaps to be seen in various parts of the town. In future, fines would be imposed upon every offender in this respect. Shocking Cruelty Towards a Wife.—John M'Grath, hawker, Tan'rallt, was oharged with assaulting his wife, # Margaret M'Grath, on the previous Saturday evening. Sergeant John Roberts in- formed the bench that the defendant was sum- moned at the instance of the police with commit- ing an aggravated assault. The wife had refused to lay information against her husband.—P. C. 30 said I was on duty in the neighbourhood of xwtmii last ttaturaay evening. About half-past eleven I was accosted by a woman, who requested me to proceed to the Poorhouse, where, she said, a man was abusing his wife fearfully. I went to the defendant's house at once, and saw Margaret M'Grath lying across a bed on the floor. The defendant was kicking her in the face. I remon- strated with him, and he tried to stifle me. I threatened to lock him up if he did not desut from ill-treating his wife. I then left the house. About ten minutes to twelve I was again called to the defendant's house. The woman was screaming "Murder," and I saw the defendant kicking her. I therefore took him into custody. The defen- dant was intoxicated, and his wife was helplessly drunk. The face of the latter was bleeding.—In reply to the bench, the defendant denied having kicked his wife, who had given him provocation by getting drunk instead of preparing him a meal whenhe came home.—The Mayor: You don't show her a good example.—The defendant: I don't taste another drop of drink for five years.—The Mayor You were here in February, 1879, for drunkenness. The offence you have committed is a very serious one. Although your wife had given you provoca- tion, this did not justify you to assault .her in the manner you did. We don't know what the result might have been had it not been for the inter- ference of the police officer. The bench must show that they will not allow people to use their feet in this manner. If you had struck your wife w.th your hand, we should have been more lenient towards you. A great deal of nuisance prevails in the neighbourhood where you live-somebody is continually screaming "Murder." As the bench are determined to put down crimes of this sort, they now fine you twenty shillings and costs. —In default of payment of fine, the accused was committed to prison. Larceny.-David Edwards, alias Crane," was brought up on remand under a charge of stealing a quantity of old iron from the Gasworks. Griffith Owen, foreman at the Gasworks, deposed that on the previous Thursday afternoon he saw the pri- soner passing the entrance to the works. He carried a bag on his back. A quantity of old iron pipes were missed immediately afterwards. Iron had been lost now and then from the works. Wit- ness identified the iron shown in court as that lost from the works. He reported the matter to Mr Parsons, and information was immediately given to the police.—Sergeant Samuel Jones said that on Thursday afternoon he proceeded to the marine store of Samuel Davies, in Little Chapel-street, where he found the stolen iron. Whilst he was there, the, prisoner came in. In reply to the charge, the prisoner said that the iron belonged to him, adding, I am guilty enough, I must either starve or steal." The iron weighed 230 lbs, and was valued at 5s.-Prisoner was committed for trial.

COUNTY COURT, TUBSDAY.—Before Mr Horatio Lloyd, judge. A Family Dispute. -Imputed -Forgery.-This was a claim by John Parry against Mary Parry and Wm. Parry, for the sum of L81 2s, and was tried by a jury. The parties in this case came from Nevin. Mr Allanson, solicitor, Carnarvon, was for the plaintiff, and Mr J. Roberts, solicitor, Bangor, for the defence. Mr Allanson, in addres- sing the jury, said the case they had to try that day was brought down to Carnarvon from the High Court of Chancery with the sanction of Vice- chancellor Hall. John Parry was a master mariner, and the money was due from his brother David Parry, who died on the 12th August, 1877, Mary Parry being now sued as administratix, and William Parry, her son, an infant, as heir-at-law. The defence was, he believed, that on account of some family dispute, the plaintiff had raked up this case of money lent against the defendants, but John Parry would be called and would say that he kept no account of the money himself, but trusted to his brother who entered each item in his own books. There was one sum of zC22 10s which had been crossed out, and Capt. Parry would say that he saw that book shortly before his brother died, and the amount was not crossed out then he afterwards saw the book soon after the death of his brother, and the sum was not struck out then, but subsequently he found that the amount had been crossed out, though he had not received a penny in respect of it. The defence would say that the plaintiff did not say a word about the money due until about four or five months after his brether died, but Mary Parry had been spoken to upon the subject, and had asked his client to defer it for a while, as she did not feel strong enough to enter into the matter. About the 12th of August, 1873, the deceased applied to his brother for the loan of 120, because an accident had occurred to the deceased's vessel, the Jane and Ellen, and she had to be scooped out and Capt. Parry lent him the L20. His client would swear that he never received the money back, and it had never been accounted for. Then about January, 1874, the deceased asked the plaintiff to sell him his share of the Jane and Ellen, he. being the only share- holder left, and his share only amounting to 2-16ths of the vessel, the deceased said it would be more convenient for him to have sole possession of the ship. The plaintiff agreed, and it was ar- ranged that the deceased should pay the sum of JE27 to the plaintiff for his interest, and there were several small sums also lent on this occasion, which brought the amount up to £ 33 lis, and for which amount an IOU would be produced, which, with the L20 before-mentioned, made L53 11s., but the book which contained this account was missing. In January, 1877, the deceased applied for the loan of X3 for the pur- pose of paying the ship carpenter for work done to his vessel, which the plaintiff also lent, and a further sum of L2 in cash, for which he could not give the exact date. Then some time after- wards he was asked to bring home two boxes of candles from Dublin, to be charged to the deceased's account, the value of which were J62. The plaintiff also lent a sum of Zio and another of £ 5, and then there was an enamelled chimney- piece which the plaintiff purchased from Messrs Nicholls and Owen, of Carnarvon, and placed in the deceased's house, for which he paid £ 2 9s. Then there was the surveyor's fee of £1 paid by plaintiff for surveying some land which belonged to John Parry and David Parry jointly, for which the surveyor s receipt would De proauoeu, nait of the fee being still due from the estate of the deceased. There was also another sum of 93 log paid by plaintiff, in respect of a joint account between the plaintiff and the deceased, half the amount-11 15s—being now claimed, the whole amount making the sum of £80 15s. His client would swear that not one penny of the amount claimed had been paid. The plaintiff would swear that he saw all the documents relating to these accounts in a drawer in Mary Parry's house, and which were in the deceased's- own handwriting, the key of the drawer being given to the plaintiff by Mary Parry. He would show that he had asked Mrs Parry to get a bill stamp for the amount, so that she might pay the money as it was most convenient to her, and that Mary Parry did procure a bill stamp and brought it home; but subsequently it was found that the drawer had been opened and the most important book, showing the largest debt, missing. His client enquired who had opened the drawer, and Mrs Parry replied, "It is my drawer;" conse- sequently, these accounts had to be made up from memory, and it would be seen that there was only a difference of 7s. between the amount accounted for by plaintiff and the sum claimed. Since then Mrs Parry had been telling the people of Nevin that John Parry was trying to rob her children, and was no better than a thief. After these proceedings were instituted, the plaintiff wrote to Mary Parry stating that to avoid throwing the estate into expense, and on the conditions that she would withdraw the words used about him, he would accept L50 in payment for the whole of his claim, but this letter was not an- swered.—John Parry was called, and said he was the plaintiff in this action, and a retired master mariner. The deceased David Parry was his brother, who died on the 12th of August, 1877. Prior to his death he had from time to time ad- vanced him various sums of money. The first advance he made in August, 1873. He then lent him £ 29. The deceased wanted the money to repair thi Jane and Ellen.-By his Honour: He had a small share in the vessel—a third ef a quarter, and the deceased owned the rest. He saw in his brother's book the entry of the loan. His brother kept witness' account. He would swear that he had not received a single sixpence since then. The IOU for £33 lis Od produced was given to him in January, 1874. As he was the only shareholder left, he sold his interest in the vessel to his brother for Y,27, the balance which brought the amount to zC33 lls Od was made up from some other small account. He had possessed the IOU ever since, but had never received the money. He had seen the entry of the X33 lis Od in his brother's book, both sums making 153 lis. He had been through the account several times with his brother, and there never was any dispute whatever. He afterwards lent his brother E10, end subsequently Y,3 to pay the ship-carpenter. He also lent Z2 in cash, and brought candles from Dublin to the amount of X2, for which his brother was answerable. He after- wards advanced 10s and another sum of j65. He had seen the entries in his brother's books, and he had never received a penny of these sums, which amounted to £ 22 10s Od. He paid Messrs Nicholls and Owen X2 9s at his brother's request, which was never returned, and he also paid the surveyor £ 1 for surveying, half of which was due from the deceased. He also pro- duced a receipt for £ 5 10s Od from Messrs Breece, Jones and Co., half of which was due from his late brother, which his brother, during his lifetime, never denied. He went to see his brother shortly before he died, but he was not then in a fit state for business. Some time after that he went to see the widow, who gave him the key of a drawer where some vouchers and the books' of witness' accounts were kept. He examined them in the widow's presence and found one of the books missing. It was the book which contained the largest amount-Y,53 lls. He asked where the book was, andfshe said Isn't it there? I will look for it when I come to myself." The memorandum in the book produced was not crossed out as it was now when he examined the books they were in a perfect state then. He would swear that the accounts weie in his brother's handwriting. He would also swear that there was another book in the drawer when he examined them which had never been produced since. He kept the key of the drawer himself after Mary Parry gave him the c book that was not produced now, and he locked them all up, and took the key away with her con- sent. On the 3rd January, 1878, he called at her house for a settlement, and he told her to get a bill stamp for the amount and he would wait for the money. He then went into the account with her. Nothing had been done to the drawer then, and everything was going on well. He went there again on the same night, when the books and the stamped paper were on the table. There was no dispute at all, only about the building of some houses, which had nothing to do with this account. He went thcr again. M. Parry opening the drawer, the key being in his pocket. He asked her "how was that," and she replied "It is my drawer." After that he was never able to tee his books nor the money. Mary Parry had used very strong expressions towards him after that. As he had not seen the books since then, he was only able to go by memory, his own account only differ- ing by 7s. He had never received any of his money from the estate.—Cross-examined: They had no share in any other vessel but the Jane and Ellen. He had not bad numerous transactions with his brother besides these. He did not write that IOU and sign it himself; his brother wrote it all at the same time, and gave it witness when he signed the bill of sale for his share of the vessel. He was never in debt to his brother. He could not say how he made up the balance from £ 27 to JE33 lls. In July, 1876, there was another book in the drawer which contained an account of JE53 lls. -Hr Roberts then read an extract of a document which was to the effect that the whole of the ac- counts were kept in two books, and that there was no third book as alleged.—Re-examined by Mr Allanson The building account was settled in January, 1878, and up to then Mary Parry never disputed that she owed the money now claimed. The 10 U was all in his brother's handwriting.— Mr Allanson here remonstrated with the defence, and said he thought it very unfair that a respectable man like Captain Parry should have such insinua- tions cast at him with regard to the genuineness of the 10 U.—Mr Wilson, draper, Nevin, was called and gave evidence as to the plaintiff asking Mary Parry who had opened the drawer, when she replied "It is my drawer." Owen Roberts, Nevin, said that in January 1878, he went into Mary Parry's house, and the plaintiff and Mrs Parry were going over some accounts. There was a dispute about £ 29. He knew that there was some money owing between the parties.—William Roberts, ship carpenter, Nevin, said he received jE2 17s for repairs done to the Jane and Ellen in January, 1877. The money was paid by Mrs Parry.—William Parry said he remembered his brother reading a letter from David Parry about some candles for G. P. Jones, fer which he (David Parry) would be answerable. -Mr Roberts then addressed the jury for the defence, and said he had only received instructions in this case on the previous Saturday from Messrs Breece, Jones, and Co., and if he was not very concise in his arguments it was owing to the short time he had had with the case. Mrs Parry entirely repudiated the statement made with re- gard to the claim brought against her, and would say that not a word was said about this money until after a quarrel they had had about some silver teaspoons, and she had refused to let him have the deeds and documents belonging to her late husband into his own hands. The plaintiff had seen these documents in the drawer and that the sums had not been crossed out, and he thought he could play a game with her. But if he thought that he would have to swear to these things he would never have come to court at all. Did they believe that the plaintiff never made an entry in any book ? Could they suppose for a moment that plaintiff would lend jE80, and all in various sums, and never make an entry of them ? Mr Roberts arcufid that the book showed that the zg33 11s was owing to David Parry from the plaintiff, and that therefore the IOU was a forgery. No doubt it was a strong accusation to make a charge of forgery against the plaintiff, and perhaps he was a respectable man, but such things had been done. The plaintiff had created an expression at Nevin because his character would depend upon this case, and he wanted to get off at all hazards. His friend had said that they would take £ 50, but he thought the p'aintiff would be very glad to get fifty pence, and have his character clear. Mr Roberts then called the attention of the jury to the writing of the 10 U, and asked them to campare it with some of the de- ceased's letters, and he went on to say that the statement of the third book was simply an after- thought. Mrs Parry never knew of a farthing owing to the plaintiff. The word "received "in the book meant that the money was received from Capt Parry by the deceased on account of money due. It was conclusive, he argued, that this zC33 lis Od was paid by the decessed and if 06 jury were satisfied that such was the case, thco the whole of the other claims were wrong as we —Mrs Parry was called, and said her husband died in August, 1877. He never told her that owed the plaintiff any money. Witness had tlVCJ keys to the drawer, and she took the spoons by the time plaintiff would come. She said would not give them up, and asked plaintiff wht he did not come for them when David Parry alive, and plaintiff said he was afraid of disturbing him, but he was not afraid of disturbing her, be* cause she was a "degree" further off in the family. He said if she did not let him have the deeds to keep it would be woe to her if she pulled him to her head." She heard nothing Of this claim till after this quarrel. She never sa- that IOU before. She kept her deeds and papeo in a drawer, and she had two keys to the draWer. Plaintiff used to go into the drawer whenever be liked. They had only two books in which the/ kept their accounts, and the one produced was one in which they kept the building account- There was no other book. The houses accounjj was settled in February, 1878. She never refused to let him see the books, but she was not willing to let him take the books away.—Cross-examined: She never had a dispute only about the spoons- She heard the plaintiff being charged with per- jury in that court. She did not remember her husband buying plaintiff's share in the Jane ad Ellen. She did not know that the money by her husband. She never saw the that day. She did not say in the presence of RO." bert Jcnes, that John Parry was a thief, and waS trying to rob her children. She did not break open the drawer. She had two keys. She nevet heard of another account besides the houses ac- count. She knew she had paid William Roberts for some work. -He -examined: She never knef her husband to owe £ 80 without telling her.—The Rev Mr James, Independent Minister, Nevin, said plaintiff told him that he had nothing whatever to show but the acknowledgment in the deceased's books.—Cross-examined: He was desired to.act tf co-arbitrator with another gentleman.—Mr A flaxy son then addressed the jury. In reply to Mr Ro" berts' complaint that they had not heard anything of the IOU until that day, Mr Allanson said the defence had never applied for affidavits. Mr Ro" berts, he said, dared to say that this man had forged that paper and perjured himself. It wSll a moat serious charge. The case was more serious now than when they came there that morning- The jury would have to weigh the charge very carefully. Did they think he would have perjured himself for a couple of teaspoons ? He trusted that they would find there was now due and owing to his client the sum of £ 80 15s Od. There was no desire to press for the money at onee, but the r plaintiff wanted his character clear.-His Honour then summed up going over the whole of the, most prominent facts, after which the jury retiredl. to consider their verdict, and after an absence ot nearly an hour, the foreman (Mr Robert Williams, Brunswick Buildings) said they found for the, plaintiff, for L45 15s Od, and that the IOU was a genuine one, that being included in the amount. Claim for Shop Goodr.-Hugh David Jones, Ebenezer, sued Robert Owen Parry, of the same place, for the sum of Y,9 3s 7d, money due for goods supplied. Mr J. H. Roberts, solicitor, ap- peared for plaintiff, and Mr Allanson defended. f Mr Jones gave evidence as to supplying the defen- dant with the goods, and stated that he had made three pass-books for the defendant on different occasions for the same amount.—Mrs Jones, plain- tiff's wife corroborated her husband's state- ment, and his Honour gave judgment for plain- tiff, the debt to be paid in monthly instalments of 10s. The other cases were of no public importance.

Sir Harry Verney has met with an acci- dent, his leg being crushed against a post while riding. Captain Webb, the channel swimmer, stated at half-past ten on Tuesday morning on an attempt to swim for 60 hours continuously in the large whale tank at the Westminster Aquarium. Five hundred Turkish troops are stated to have been despatched with a view to effecting the release of Colonel Synge. Reductions to the extent of nearly thirty per cent, in the Estimates of the Ministry for For- eign Affairs were agreed to at the Council of Ministers at Constantinople on Monday. Other retrenchments have also been decided upon, including a reduction in the amount paid for officers' rations. A Royal decree was published on Tuesday at Madrid, prohibiting the importation into Spain of pork in any form from the United States and Germany. Article 7 of the Ferry Bill was on Tuesday rejected by the French Senate by a majority of nineteen the numbers who voted having been- for Article VII., 129 against, 148. A great fire occurred at Moscow on Mon- day last, at Zwartofsky's weaving works. The whole of the buildings were destroyed: 24 persons were burnt to death, and 29 others injured. M. de Lesseps on Monday attended a meeting of tiie Select Committee of the American House of Representatives, and gave detailed explanations in regard to the Panama Canal scheme. Military precautions continue to be taken for the preservation of public order at San Francisco, which city large numbers of China- men are leaving for the Eastern States. Mr Parnell arrived at Montreal on Mon- day night, and was received by a torchlight pro- cession formed by 5000 Irishmen, some of whoity unharnessed the horses from his sleigh and drew it to the hotel. Oolonel Stanley has intimated that, in consequence of the dissolution of Parliament, the Easter Monday Review will be postponed, but facilities will be given, if desired, to hold the review at Whitsuntide. It is rumoured that it is the intention of his Holiness the Pope to raise the Right Rev Dr O'Reilly, Catholic Bishop of Liverpool, to the dignity of an Archbishop. The diocese of Liver- pool is, it is said, to be divided, and a bishopric established at Preston. The Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on. I Sunday (No 2) Bill, introduced by Mr Pease, Viscount Castlereagh, and Mr Tremayne, has beea printed. The purport of the measure is described in the following statement prefixed to the Bill The hours during whichpuplic-houses areatpresent open on Sunday are as follows In the metro- politan district-from one o'clock p.m., to three o'clock p.m., from six o' cloek p.m., to eleven o'clock p.m. Elsewhere-fromhalfpast twelve o'clock.pm. to half-past two o'clock p.m. from six ol clock p. m. to ten o'clock, p.m. It is proposed by this bill to reduce the evening hours of opening in the Metro- politan district, so that houses may remain open from seven o'clock p.m. until 10 o'clock p.m.; and elsewhere, se that houses may remain open from seven o'clock p.m. until nine 'cloock p.m. It is pro- posed to prohibit all sale of intoxicating liquor during these hours except the sale of beer, dec., for consumption 011 the premises, and except in the metropolitan district, and in large towns, the sale of liquors for comsumption on the premises, as part of a bona fide meal. It is not proposed to alter the present law as regards a bon. jide trav- eller or as relates to railway refreshment rooms. = Printed and Published at the CARNARVON PRIN-FMO WORKS, NEW HARBOUR, CARNARVON, in the County of Carnarvon, by ROBERT WILLIAMS, for the Car- narvon Newspaper & Printing Co. Limited. Published also at the Establishments of Mr Ellis Roberts, Four- crogses, Festiniog, in the County of Merioneth; at the Establishment of Mrs Ellen Willliams^ Llangefni, in the County of Anglesey; at the Estabisiunent ot Mr Robert Lloyd, Ruthin, the County of Denbigh, and at the Establishment of Mr J. Kerfoot Evans j High-street. Holywell, in the County ot Flint. OS. FRIDAY, MA.RCH th. 18 0.