Symud i'r prif gynnwys
Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

30 erthygl ar y dudalen hon



THE FARMERS v REVOLT.* TaE fteBaUOA RIOTS. Uy the lice. J. LluIJd James (ClwydwcnJru). That tiie cffoct of their verdict would be to send iiiiii into transpor cation, which would be nio e b tUr than dca h itself. That might Jo t1 tie-tllt) consequences ul their verdict iii.g.u IDJ sad lo the prisoner. he hau Hut nai so ijiti, It experience as his learned fiicnu in the pioce^dings ot criminal courts, but he knew ttia. 110 one could take part in them Without leeltng much sorrow-and that this feeling possessed the jury, counsellors for the prisoners, and those who conducted the prosecution. Tlieii the learned gentleman went over all the circumstances of the evi- dence, as far as they affected the prisoner, and in a powerful addicts lie defended" the i'c ions of the justices and policemen, who had gone out with the praiseworthy object to prevent the deeds of the lioters, who had lately gone so far as to take upon them the authority to order lives and possessions ac- cording to their own whim and desire. He would leave the matter in the hands of the jury, and confidently trusting in their judg- ment and firmness to do justice between the ( low 11 and the piisonc". The learned gentle- man was an hour and ten minutes delivering his excellent speech, but it is beyond our limited space to record the whole oi it. Then Baron (iurney proceeded to review the evidence and said that ;1 was a great :;lti:;fac.joi) to tJIClll th;-tt they bad heclJ eaded to fulfii the important present duty in a p'ace that was far from the places where the ciiines were committed, and where the minds of tIn people v eve free from preju- dice, which prevailed in other places. re- cause of this the jury would be able to judge impartially and considerately all the facts brought out iii the ease. Then the learned Ba-on repeated the accusa' ions against the prisoner, as they were set forth in the pre- sentation of the case; and lie referred to the principal (ircumstancrs connected with the crime for which he i,, tried, and which jp,j.(] il; "h^t of the liotocs gathering, of which there w,1 no (uubt. accord- ing to the evidence, that the prisoner had j pailicipated in. His Liidship also 'nn- tion-d the most important, particular:; in the evidence of Captain Napier, and the other witnesses, declaring that it rested with the jury to decide whether he intended to COlll- plete the dest:u:^ion whiih had been begun. One way to decide that was to consider whe- ther the rioters left off the work of their own accord, or that they had been prevented by the policemen who came on to them. The learned judge reviewed briefly, but very comprehensively, all the evidence 011 this point; and noticed that the next matter lor the jury to consider was whether the prisoner was one of those NN-lio encouraged and as- sisted in the work of destruction, formed part of the rioters, and consented in their pur- pose. On tlrits point also his Lordship repeated the testimony of Captain Napier and others, and that an assault had been made on that witness by the prisoner, and that a scuffle had taken place between them, that the prisoner had estranged himself as to his clothes, and he described the things found iir the possession of the prisoner when appre- hended, and several other circumstances he regarded of importance, fully described in the evidence. In concluding, the learned Judge told the ury what the law was in this matter; and reminded them that on the facts alone they were to look, and bring in their verdict after serious consideration. Hav- ing done so, if they saw the evidence against the prisoner insufficient or lacking, then they were to find and pronounce him not guilty; but on the other hand, if they conscientiously believed that lie was guilty, then they were to pronounce him so without consideration of the consequences, as honest and impartial men between the Crown and the prisoner. Then the jury retired to a separate room, and in about half an hour they returned to the Court and pronounced the prisoner "Guilty,' recommending him to the mercy of the Court, because of his previous good ehareter. Ii Ttlfll tiLO C, tift WIS adp. Mnrd to "-he Mon- day. Monday, October 30, 1843.—The Judge en- tered the court at 10 o'clock, and because the proceedings on Saturday had been left, in finding John Hughes guilty, and that the people were desirous of knowing what would next take plac-i. many had appeared at the place. Some supposed that the other prison- ers would plead not guilty, and that the whoflc evidence would have to be gone over afresh; but scarcely anyone expected that the trials would end as they did. It seems that a conference was held between the counsels of both parties oil the preceding Sunday, but w hat agreement was come to none can say, except by means of what took place after- wards. Then David Jones and John Hugh were placed at the bar, and they were accused of the same crime as John Hughes, that is uf commencing to destroy and demolish the dwelling-house' of William LeVvis, of the parish of Llandilo Talybont. When the officer asked David Jones whether he was guilty or not guilty, he seemed to halt between two minds as to the answer he should give; but at last. in a hestitating voice, he said Guilt Then Mr. Hall asked the Clerk not to record his answer for a little while, and after lie had privately conversed with the prisoners, David Jones and John Hugh were asked the second time, and replied "Guilty." Then the Common Commissioner said, inas- much as the prisoners had admitted their be- ing guilty of the charge brought against them, he did not intend to address the Court for the sake of getting a heavy punishment in their case. Mr. M. n. Ilill, counsel for the prisoners, now add.essed the Court in their behalf. He observed that their Lordships had heard the prisoners admitting their guilt. After the long trial that had taken place, and which had occupied the Court all Friday and Satur- day—and after the verdict which had been brought in by the jury, who had paid the closest attention to the case placed before them from its beginning to its ellll-afíer that verdict, he said, and he thought that their Lordships would be of the opinion that the prisoners had not been badly advised to admit their guilt. Their Lordships, in ad- ministering the law with wisdom and mercy, would not regard it as a fault in a man, although guilty, to demand trial by jury. In doing so, he was not asking but what was due to him. He committed no additional crime by asking for a trial, nor did he make the previous crime worse. But when prison- ers, after due consideration, and after con- ferring with their relatives and friends, thought weJl to submit to the law without such trial, perhaps lie would not be regarded as taking too much liberty iii drawing their Lordships' attention to this fact, as mani- festing their penitent spirit, and that they wished to do all in their power to atone for the crime they had committed. Perhaps their Lurdshios would also consider that this exampi'e of guilty and fallen men would be without its use, by showing that 1hev no longer set themselves up against the lav, but, by surrendering their right to a trial, weie to the punishniert which would be inflicted on them., He could tell their Lordships that one and the chief in- ducement which weighed upon the i rinds it persons, wa.; to be of some service to their comrade, who had been pronounced guilty* and he trusted that their Lordships would not regard with indifference this commendable wish. In respect to that unhappy person, perhaps lie might be permitted to draw their Lordships' atention to the character given him, as showing the position and responsibility from which he had fallen. The same obser- vation might be applied to those who were now before the Court, and it could be proved by witnesses if the Common Commissioner de- Fre(I it. They all belonged to respectable fainillies. A few months before they could hold up their heads with the proudest in the country; because at that time they were in- nocent, doing what was right, and walking according tl) the law. From this position their Lordships could see to what a pit they had fallen. They were now criminals, and marked by the most disgraceful title that the could apply to them; they had forfeited their possessions—and worse than that, as to two of them. they had already received a measure of punishment, which the Court would take into consideration, because no human power could save them now from the effects of that punishment. The prison^ ])a,] been e,,ili!iiii- ting the crime which had been undo" their (.()i)sideratit)li and by the testimony of a physician to the Common Commissioner,


JII .-----.-----.-.-"""-.--.,¡…






[No title]

Pembrokeshire Hunt.
















HEIRS TO £ 30,000,000.