Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

5 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

;.'Glamorganshire Spring Assizes.

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

Glamorganshire Spring Assizes. SWANSEA, 1843. (CONTINUED FROM THE FOURTH PAGE.) you. prisoner for the murder of Bowling." Thomas said, "I believe I am in the mess." Thomas, on his way to the station, said, It was not I that killed him; it was Dashy." Found the hatchet now produced at the house of Davies. An the parties seemed in liquor. O'Leary identified the .hatchet. William Reece, police-inspector, deposed to having taken .prisoners, Thomas Evans and Davies, to the station-house. Next morning he apprehended Lewis. Lewis said to Evans, You struck Bowling on the back part of his body. Afterwards examined Davies. On his shirt, and on that of Rees, spots of blood were found. On the 29th November apprehended Griffiths on the Strand. 11 G. Bird, Esq., mayor of SivAnsea, deposed to having been requested to go to the scene of murder. Went there Hind in -W Bowling dead. Subsequently examined the body, v which, when alive, was in good health. On the left collar- bpne there were three fractures, and a cut on the left temple, which Went to the bone. Apparently the cut of a Ratchet. Such wound would not cause immediate death. Also a wound under the left ear, which might have been in- Bicted by a IIhoe. The brain was injured in a part corres- ponding to the bruise. The immediate cause of death was "%Ike injury to the brain, caused by the exterior wound. .There was, no IappeiLtiLilee of the deceased having recently drank. Cross-eiamined: I-le would say that the blow deceased got on his head was more likely to produce his death than a kick when down. The mortal result of the latter would depend on the severity of the kick. Extravasated blood was found in various parts of the brain. The cuts on the temple v, could have be^n produced by a knife but the appearance "of the wound indicated that it was given with great severity. r The appearances that he saw could not have been produced ,1.1 a fall even of a few feet. There was a slight laceration .46ii the nock. Thomas Hall, surveyor deposed to having drawn the plan the Passage," and the relative position of the houses. "I\l'hD closed the case on the part of the prosecution. Mr.^W"iljQn addrtssecl the jury for Evans, Griffiths, and on ;Ldt, e. TV>raas. He contended the; there was nothing in the ciice.that criminated them. (He would go on still fur- disay, that even if criminated in consequence of Wiiyj mixed up with the others, yet that nothing but man- slaughter would be the result. The learned counsel then proceeded to analixe the evidence, which he would insist .tU(I tiot"affect the parties he appeared for. c. The other learned counsels subsequently addressed the 3**y for their respective clients. I The following witnesses to character were then called :— Richard Isabell had known Evans. Captain Boundry, manager of the copper-ore yard, spoke to the character of Evans as being peaceable and well-con- ducted for the period he had known him. David Eaton spoke of Davies as being a well-disposed man for twenty years. John Davies spoke to a twenty-four years knowledge of Davies. For two years he had known him rather intimately. Evan ft arris spoke also to his character, as being a sober sand hard-working man. Lewis Thomas spoke to an eighteen years knowledge of Davies. Always found him an honest and peaceable man. Evidence as to Rees's character, by various persons who bad known him for some years, was also gone into. They merely recapitulated the evidences as to respectability. and steadiness of the prisoner. Thomas Jones spoke to William Thomas's character, and Vouched for his humanity. Similar evidence was given in favour of John Lewis, by Inen who had known him for years. His Lordship submitted the evidence to the jury, and with great precision, laid down the law of the case. He particu- larly distinguished between murder and manslaugher, and the circumstances of aggravation or extenuation under which either might have been committed, and which might have distinguished one from the other. As the learned judge detailed the particulars of the attack on Bowling, and the atrocity of kicking at and cutting up a dead man, a thrill of horror ran through the court, and several females absolutely bicuae faint at the horrid recital. The wife of the deceased and a small knot of her friends, remained, couched in a corner of the witness's box, listening, with painful and tiarrowing suspense, to the charge of the learned judge, and enjoying the condolence of many considerate persons, who iympathued with her. The prisoners were decently dressed, And appeared the only persons unconcerned in the court. They took occasional refreshment and comforted themselves under circumstances that would have shaken the stoutest nerves, with apparent composure. This equanimity was, possibly, the result of blunted and seared feelings, which indifference, confinement, and the fact of their having made up their minds, might have produced. The charge of the learned judge commenced at twenty minutes to six o'clock, and concluded at seven o'clock. Though it blew a stiff north-wester outside, those inside *h# court had all the comfort of a" baker's oven," or the genial warmth the stoker enjoys on his engine. Windows 'Wtmrttft "up and down to catch the breeze, bat tire crowd and* pressure inside greater than ever was remembered in that court, could be relieved by nothing short of the result of the case, which they patiently sat or stood out. When his lord- ship concluded, the jury asked leave to retire, and after an absence of about five minutes, the jury returned into court, and on their names being called over, the foreman returned a verdict of Manslaughter" against the whole of the pri- soners. The verdict was received in breathless suspense, and with apparent dissatisfaction. Testimonials to character were handed in by counsel, which his lordship looked over. The Clerk of the Arraigns then put the usual question to <the prisoners, Why sentence should not be pronounced aigainst them, according to law 1" His Lordship then said, they had been, after a patient in- vestigation, found guilty of the crime charged in the indict- anent. The verdict given by the jury was a merciful one. For that verdict they were responsible, not he. The learned judge, after reprobating the baseness of the act of which they were found guilty, and which he attri- buted not a little to an addiction to drunkenness, sentenced the prisoners to transportation for life. Directly on the delivery of the sentence, the female friends •of the prisoners set up shrieks and lamentations, in the midst of which the court adjourned. TUESDAY. FELONY. Utary Davies, aged 34, was charged with having stolen, oa tite 6th February, at Neath, a quantity of wearing ap- parel. the property of Mary Griffith. The jtrisoner, it appeared, kept a lodging-house, at Neath, for worsen. The prosecutrix lived there for some time and left. On her return, the articles in question, a shawl and apron, which she left, were missed. The articles were taken by tke prosecutrix as, she said, in lieu of lodging-money al- leged to be due to her. Prisoner got a fair character for honesty and industry. The jury found her Guilty. The prisoner was charged on another indictment for stealing a jacket and other articles of wearing apparel, at 31 eath, the property of Mary Hughes. Mr. Williams, who conducted the case on the part of the terown. declined, in this case, to offer any evidence and the jury, under the direction of his lordship, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Three months imprisonment in the House of Correction. BIGAMY. Ajvnt Richards, aged 24, was charged with having, on the 27tk Uecember, 1842, feloniously intermarried with Lewis Lewis. her former husband being then alive. Mr. Richards stated the case to the jury, and called the following witnesses » William Rowland, parish clerk of Merthyr, produced the certificate of the marriage of Thomas Richards with the prisoner on the 29th July, 1839. He identified her in the magistrates' room by the colour of her hair. John Price, a miner, recollects the marriage of the parties. TV prisoner is the female. Thomas Richards is now alive. I He went to church to attend all the friend of the parties. David Lewis, registrar of marriages at Merthyr, was jWCeaent atthemardage ceremony on the 20th of November, UW2. The marriage was duly registered in his book. I Described as a widow. Witness knew the prisoner before. Did not know the man. Thomas Benjamin Evans, minister, was present. The ,lp"es produced the certificate and license to him. Prisoner <on that occasion described herself as a widow. Thomas Richards sworn: Is father of Thomas Richards, Who is now living. Has been living at Merthyr for years past. Thomas Edwards sworn Is superintendent-registrar at Merthyr, and issued the certificate for the marriage. The usual notice was served on him of the intention of the parties to be married. Mr. Williams, for the defence, contended for the invalidity of the indictment, on the ground of informality of the mar- riage certificate. That, however, was not pressed, and the learned counsel addressed the jury for the defence. He had just opened, When Lewis Lewis was called. He stated that the first husband was alive, and at Merthyr at the period of her intermarriage a second time. The learned counsel resumed, and contended, that the ground of her dissatisfaction with her first husband was such as almost to justify her intermarrying. The excess of his brutality might be inferred from the fact, that he actually ■old her openly in the streets of Merthyr, with a halter round her neck. WJane Elias: Knew the prisoner and first husband Richards. Was present when he sold his wife to Evan Hughes for three-pence!" She had a collar round her neck. The file took place at the house of witness's sister. Richards, *0 parting with his wife, got rid of a bed and other property, ibolonging to his wife. The prisoner was in great distress afterwards. Evan Hughes was her chief support. Prose- ctor gave the prisoner leave to marry, if she wished. J^nowa Richards about three years. Is friends with him. *<van Hughes was lodging in the house, and was on good terms with the prisoner. Evan and the prisoner slept at Witness's house every night, and, apparently, cohabited. he purchaser was serious in buying, and the vender in selling. Richards having sold his wife, said he was free to marry. He assigned, as a reason for parting with his wife, that he was courting a widow at Glebeland, near Merthyr. Witness did not think the proceedings at all strange. There Were also in the house David Harris and Sarah Thomas, lodging at the house at the time of the sale. Diana Lewis Was present at the marriage. Lewis Lewis said he had got four names. Witness did not give the names. His Lordship left the case to the jury, who found the prisoner guilty, but recommended her to mercy. One week's imprisonment. The sentence was received with partial applause. The following, against whom no bills were found, were discharged by proclamation :-Oliver Harris, for a burglary in the house of John Kitts, publican. Jennette Thomas, for stealing a little coal. William Williams and Charles Wil- liams, charged with stealing one sovereign, the property of William Power, of Merthyr. John Rees and David Wade, for stealing a pickaxe. Gwenllian Thomas, charged with child dropping. This terminated the criminal cases. The court then proceeded to the trial of the following causes. CIVIL SIDE. „ POWELL V. REES. This was an action for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff, residing in Bridgend, to the defendant. The goods consisted of four cows, sold to the defendant, Thomas Rees, a butcher in Bridgend. There were also four sheep. The amount of the entire was 61 Os. 6d. The sum sought to be recovered. Less 1;7 4s. claimed by the defendant, as a set off for meat occasionally delivered to the plaintiff. The case was undefended. The value and delivery of the cows were proved by the son of Jenkin Powell, the plaintiff. Verdict for the plaintiff. E53 16s. 6d. EDWARDS V. BUCKLAND. Mr. James, who appeared for the defendant, stated the case. It was an action for goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant to the amount of f240. As to £ 140 of that sum, the defendant, who was manager of the iron-works, does not dispute his liability, and had paid that sum into. court. The only question arises respecting the reitiaining EIOO. That hundred was paid by a cheque drawn by the defendant on the Glamorganshire Banking Company. That cheque was paid to the plaintiff, who said he lost it, and contends that it should be paid over again. John Voss, a clerk in the Glamorganshire Bank, in Swan- sea, deposed to having paid the cheque in question on the 25th June, 1841, to a man in a fustian jacket, who presented it. Witness believes him to be from the Cambrian iron- works, and paid the cheque. The cheque was payable at Neath, but as the branch in Swansea had an account open with the Neath branch, there was the less reluctance to honor the cheque. There was nothing unusual in men in working jackets presenting cheques. Lewis Howell, jun., proved the handwriting of the plaintiff. Mr. Chilton, for the plaintiff, submitted that a cheque was not admissible in evidence. All drafts, he urged for the payment of money are liable to a stamp-duty, unless drawn on a banker, and issued within fifteen miles of the bank on which the cheque is professed to be drawn, provided the place where the draft shall be drawn shall be specified. He cited the case of Harvey v. Mitchel, as bearing on the point. The learned counsel contended that the cheque was issued at Maestest-a place within nine miles of the bank. The court decided on the inadmissibility of the cheque as evidence. Joshua Morgan proved the issuing of the cheque at Neath, in 1841. It was given to Mr. Edwards. Other evidence respecting the delivery of the cheque in question was gone into. The possibility of the defendant being called upon to pay this cheque constituted his plea, and was relied on for his defence. Mr. Chilton* in his address to the jury, urged this point. His lordship left the case to them, who found a verdict for the defendant, and that not being able to see the cheque they presumed it was outstanding. The court rose early. rr.otfx*U- WEDNESDAY. JONES V. HARDING. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a timber-merchant, residing at Merthyr, to recover from the defendant, a publican, residing at Dowlais, the amount of timber supplied to him for the erection of houses. Evidence was gone into on the part of the plaintiff, to prove the de- livery of the timber, part of it in the year 1838, and part in 1839. Building materials (slates), to the amount of;clo, was admitted on part of the defendant, and paid into court. The claim for the residue was resisted, on the ground that it was delivered to a man of the name of Thomas, alledged to be employed by the defendant; and on his credit, but whose discretion in that particular, was not recognised by him. The defendant also contended that plaintiff was not at all entitled to recover, as lie did not sue as the proper plaintiff, he being supposed to be in partnership with his son. The jury found for the plaintiff for the sum claimed, JE36 gai 7d. -.> •Vi. JOKE* C- raiar This was an acticn for trespass. The defendant pleaded not Guilty. Mr. Evans stated the case to the jury. It was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a solicitor at Swansea, for injury alledged to be sustained by the de- molition of his hedges, by the defendant. In 1842 the plaintiff took some ground, convenient to the borough of Loughor, which he properly fenced and hedged at an expense of about £ 8 6s. 6d. The spot of ground belonged to the corporation of Loughor. In April the fencing was completed, and the land enclosed. On the 26th May, a bailiff, employed by the defendant of the name of Cook; by the direction of the defendant was ordered to take a number of men with him and throw down these enclosures. The parties accordingly went to the ground, one of them, as it was alledged, riding on the occasion, Mr. Price's own bay mare, and the rest with pick-axes and shovels. While employed in the work of demolition, word was sent to Mr. Jones, that his fences were being destroyed and he sent a messenger to know why and upon what authority the fences were taken down. The messenger was to!d, that the parties engaged were so by the direction of the defendant, and that they would be responsible for the result. A farmer, Jeremiah Williams, residing in the vicinity of the enclosures, and for whom the defendant was concerned, complained of the annoyance they were to him. To try the right of the plaintiff to have such enclosures, they were demolished. Hence the present action. Evidence of the demolition of the enclosures with the cost, and by the direction of plaintiff, was gone into. Mr. Chilton addressed the jury for the defendant, and con- tended that the responsibility did not attach to Mr. Price, and that the parties should have waited for the direction of Mr. Williams. Verdict for the plaintiff, JE8 Is. EDWARDS V. DAVIS AND OTHERS, This was an action of trespass. Defendants pleaded not Guilty. Mr. Williams stated the case. It was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover com- pensation in damages for the loss of a rick of hay, and the destruction of certain fences. The plaintiff in the year 1841 purchased the unexpired term of a ase of ground on which was a close. called Craig Lluid. On the close stood a stack of hay. Plaintiff paid the rent of the piece. In a short time after the defendants forcibly took away the hay, and pulled down the enclosures, in consequence of which the present action was brought. Evidence of the possession of the plaintiff by regular sale was given, and also of the forcible possession of the hay, and demolition of the enclosures. Mr. Wilson addressed the jury on the part of the defend- ants, and contended that the action of the defendants, was justifiable, inasmuch as the illegal sale of the close and hay to the plaintiff was all fictitious, for the purpose of fraudul- ently concealing the property. The learned counsel called evidence of this allegation. On the part of the defendant evidence was adduced to prove that the alleged sale was delusive, and got up to de fraud creditors. The jury found for the defendant, THURSDAY. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. William, versus Randall. SPECIAL JURY. This was an action for a breach of promise of marriage. Mr. Williams opened the pleadings. The defendant pleaded that he did not promise to marry upon which issue was joined. Damages were laid at E2000. Mr. Chilton stated the case to the jury, and called the following evidence :— Miss Jane Williams examined Is sister to the plaintiff. Lives with her father, near Dunraven Castle. Her eldest sister is married to a farmer living at Newton. Nancy is a widow. Her third sister, Margaret, is married. Another sister is married in Yorkshire. Her other sisters were at home unmarried. Her father was 79 years of age. Knows defendant 14 years. He is agent to Lord Dunraven. He lived formerly in the Vale of Neath. His wife died in 1831. In 1835 he came to lodge with her father. He occupied a parlour, Kitchen, &c., and lived there six years. His parlour opened into the garden and family sitting-room. Paid attention to her sister Chariotte about six years ago. His attentions were gradual but marked. Saw that in 1840 they were decided. Slade is held under Lord Dunraven. Mr. Randall used to drive out her sister pretty often. That first began about two years after he came to Slade. He generally walked or drove with her. She occasionally sat in his room with him. In May, 1841, Mr. R. said, she was only to takewhat clothes he gave her, that nobody should say that she brought him anything. That the dinner was to be dressed at his new house every Saturday, to oblige Stephen Collier, agent, Mr, Randall's son was at home in June 1841. One evening when a party were at cards, and Mr. R. spoke to his son, who was at school at Cheltenham, to provide himself with lodgings, and he then looked very significantly at her sister Charlotte. Soon after he I urged her to hasten with her wedding clothes. He said that at Bridgend, where a pottage was being built for Mr. R., preparatory to liis marriage, that servants should lay the table every day, and if a friend should call there would be nothing to be done. In November, 1841, Mr. R. removed to Bridgend. Shortly before she saw that Mr. R.'s attention had fallen off, and gradually ceased. Her sister's health and spirits were affected by such treatment. Witness has three brothers. Cross-examined by Mr. Evans: Her father took the benefit of the Insolvent Act. They keep four farm-servants. The parlour in their house is about 12 feet square. Mr. Rand-ill occasionally drove her sister out, and made her and her sisters presents of gowns, gloves, &c. The value of the phseton was about £ 10. One of her sisters was a lady's maid, and married a butler. Another married a coach driver. The other married a Mr. Morgan. Miss Williams, the plaintiff, is 42. Mr. Randall's son is about 18. The conversation about the clothes, in 1841, took place in his parlour. The partition was thin, and the door ajar and she could hear what passed in the other room. The conversation about Stephen Collier was also in his par* lour. These were the occasions on which she heard a reference to the subject of marriage. There was a third conversation, "You must be busy with your cloths in about six weeks," took place also in the parlour. Remembers when her sister was at Halkett, when Mr. Randall was ill. Her sister did not return to a party. Does not recollect that her sister had a quarrel with Mr. R. ot high words. Never saw her sister much out of temper. Is quite sure she never heard warm words between her sister and the defendant. Her sister never mentioned any difference between them. He remained for 14 days in November, 1841, when there was a coolness between them without speaking. She did not notice it, because she thought it would be made up." Re-examined by Mr. Chilton Mr. Randall is about 44. Could see that the significant look was addressed to her sister. Mrs. Jenkins, is proprietor of Newton Cottage. It has good acccommodation. In 1841, Mr. Randall, came to take it, and they had met-come to terme in the course of the interim. He came a third time, and brought Miss Williams with him. They looked over the apartments together. Miss Williams thought the drawing-room rather small. Finally agreed upon terms—allowing the witness certain rooms. Upon the occasion defendant said, pointing to a room excepted, You will want this room yourself, Charlotte." The parties in her presence had private con- ference. She took Miss Williams, to be in the light of Mr. Randall's betrothed. Cross-examinated by Mr. Evans —Knew all the family for 16 years. Knew that Mr. R., lodged with them. Is quite sure that it was Miss C. Williams, that came about the cottage. The terms agreed upon for the cottage was £ 35 a-year. Mary Aune Jones Is a dress-maker, at Bridgend. Re- i members seeing Mr, R. driving Miss Williams about in his gig. From the manner in which they went together, she thought they were engaged. In August, 1841, was in the habit of making dresses, and was told, in August 1841, to go to Weinskele, to make a silk dress for a particular occasion. She thought it was for a wedding dress. It was finished on the 26th August. Miss Williams was then at Weinskele. Mr. Randall came on that day. Mr. R. was in the parlour. Miss W. came up stairs to her for her dress. Saw her go in and out of the parlour where Mr. R. was. Mr. R. stayed to tea. Mr. G. Halkets Is land-agent of Nash Vale estate. Lived in the Vale of Neath formerly. In 1819, he married one of the Miss Williams. In 1837, became acquainted with Mr. R. Mr. R. is about forty-four ysars of age. Miss. C. "1IT':11':I'L" "UlO,rU."I:nnQ 11 v v;Qitar1 IT U. Willinmo "llUi:LJU::t V,AO.l.V.w.uJ ,u.u. Mitbw .f'f-& iiiioiuo before his reverses to be an extensive fariner. Frequently saw Miss C. Williams and defendant at his house. Thought that at Christmas his intentions were marked. Had no doubt about his intention. Frequently brought Miss C. in his gig to witness's house. Remembers Mr. Williams and the plaintiff meeting at Bucklands, to see how the house was to be laid out. On that occasion, wit- ness's sister-in-law objected to the size of a door, when Mr. R. said, addressing Miss C.. W., If you think it too narrow it shall be altered." And on another occasion, "That if the house was not ready in time, that plenty of houses were to be had." The witness, in the beginning of May. 1841, observed there was a coldness in the attentions of Mr, R. At Dr. Verity's, where the parties met, there was a coldness. On one occasion, defendant complained of being ill, in con- ] sequence of the supposed coldness with which he was treated by the plaintiff. He was so affected, that he begged to have his shoes, and that he would never return. On the 22nd September, in consequence of the breaking off the attachment, Witness wrote a letter to defendant, re- questing to know his intention. To this there was a reply to the effect, that the writer was mistaken in the purport of his application. Witness knows Mr, Lyall, whom he con- sulted on the matter, in August 1842, He wrote tq the i defendant, urging him to retrieve his honour, and keep his ] word to the lady. Heard Mr. Randall say, that his property i in Wiltshire to be worth 100 a year. His income, derived from Lord Dunraven's agencies, was 8d. in the pound, on a rental of £ 12,000 per year. Mr. R. offered witness the loan of £ 1000. « Cross-examined by Mr. Evans: Was not aware of any quarrel between the lovers. Never knew that his brother was a suitor of Miss C. Williams or forbidden the house. ) This closed the plaintiff's case. ] His lordship left the Page t.0 the jury, observing, that the I question for them would be, whether there had been a. pro- 1 mise of marriage, and if there had, what was the amount of s compensation which the breach of promise involved, If the ] lady was forty-two, it did not follow that she could be trifled with, or that her feelings were so blunted as not to be sus- ceptible of injury or feeling. The lady had lost the chance of a good settlement in life by the disappointment, and that circumstance increased the mortification incident to the whole affair. The damages --were laid at £ 2000; and it would be for the jury to say what part of that sum, if any, the plaintiff was intitled to. The jury retired, and after a deliberation of ten minutes, returned into court wit4 a yerdict for the plaintiff. Damages — £ 600. f The verdict seemed to have given satisfaction, His lordship certified that it was a fit case for a special jury- Mr. Chilton, with whom was Mr. V. Williams, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Evans and Mr. James for the defendant.

NEWPORT!TOWN-HALL, MONDAY,…

[No title]

MEDICAL INFORMATION.

Family Notices