The North Wales Chronicle and Advertiser for the Principality

in bad a little before 7 in the morning; but he declined to swear positively that he had not been out; but of course the inference to be drawn from the statement was the same. It might be, therefore, that in the case of Hughes the police officer may have been mistaken, and that without casting the slightest suspicion as to his in. tention to speak the truth. The case of Owen Griffith was a little different. The policeman swore that he saw him with the others, and that he took a gun off him, and would have taken two pheasants from him also but that he was suddenly attacked by the third party, who was unknown to him. He followed Griffith for some distance, but did not catch him; and when he stopped, he told him he should find him at his work in the moruiug. The policeman did go to the building where the prisoner usually worked, but he was not there. He then went to the public-house where he lodged, in Llan. fairfechan, and by the permission of the landlord, Mr. Roberts, he, in oouopauy with Mr. Piatt's gamekeeper searched the prisoner's bedroom. He found there pheas- ants'feathers, gunpower, and shllt, which certainly had a suspicious look about it. There was one thing in connec- tion with this .vhich had been overlooked by the counsel on both sides, but which he considered was a singular fact, viz that though there were powder, shot, and pheasants' feathers in the ronra, there was no gun. Per- haps the point was not of much importance, but such was the fact. He must also remark that no attempt had been made by the prosecution to identify the guns, which would have been pretty nearly decisive of the matter. As to the shot taken out of the gnll by the keeper, and that which was found in Griffith's room, and which was said by the gamekeeper to be identically the same-namely. a mixture of Nos. 3 and 4. Why, the shot would be handed to the jury for them to judge for themselves, and he was glad it was for them to decide, and not himself. In conclusion, he hoped the jury would not be guided by anything which he may have said, save as to facts; and if they fancied they could de. tect a leaning either way in the reiuarks he had made, he trusted they would banish such a notion from their minds. It was a question for them only to decide. At the same time, he must say that their duty was to do strict justice, and that from the evi(leticet)rotiglit before them. They may have their suspicions -he may have his suspicion—but a person must not be found guilty upon suspicion, for that would not be justice As it re- lated to Griffith—if the jury should decide in favour of the prisoner Hughes, that would certainly be somewhat in favour of Griffith because it may be reasonably as. sumed if the policeman was mistaken in one person, he may have been as to the other. He also begged to can the attention or the jury to the excellent character which had been given of Hughes. The jury then consulted together, and in less than a minute they returned a verdict of Not Guilty" in the case of the two prisoners. This announcement was received with some cheering in the gallery, but was iustantly repressed by the officers of the Court. TUB QLYJF LEAD MISS, BKTTWS Y COED. I Jones v. Roberts, and others. — The issue of this action was to recover the sum of .£100 alleged to be due to the plaintiff from the defendants, who had purchased the said lead mine from him for zC"O, and they having paid £ 100 on account. Mr. Morgan Lloyd and Mr. Horatio Lloyd, instructed by Mr. Griffith, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. McIntyre, instructed by Mr. Cain Parry, Mold, for the defendants. Mr. Horatio Lloyd having opened the pleadings Mr. Morgan Lloyd stated the case for the plaintiff. The action was to recover the sum of £100 balance due to the plaintiff for the price of a lead mine sold by him to the defendants, and called the Glyn Lead Mine, which ia situated between Bettws ycoed and Capel Curig. The mine was on the estate of Lord Willoughby D'Eresby, who formerly gave the poor people of the neighbour- hood every facility for working the mines about there. About 20 years ago the plaintiff, William Jones, and his brother worked the same mine; but in the year 1857, there being a great increase of inhabitants in that part of the county, as well as in other parts of Wales, Lord Wil- loughby and his agent deemed it desirable to make some alteration in the terms for working mines upon the estate and it was decided that persons should procure take notes to give then. the power of working, and be. cause they wished to secure the rights of the people of the locality as against strangers. In 1857, therefore, the plaintiff William Jones, and his brother had a take note from the agent of the estate, and for which they paid an annual rent. In December 1861, Morris Roberts, Ed- ward Roberts, Edward Lloyd, and Evan Lloyd, agreed to purchase the mine of defendant, and there was a written agreement of the transaction, written in IVelah, and which would be produced in court. It stipulated that the defendants were to pay the plaintiff the sum of £ 200—the first hundred when the take note was given to Morris Roberts (the Roberts's in fact weie the princi- pal persons, as the Lloyds had but a very small interest in the concern) signed by Lord Willoughby s agent; and the second hundred when that part of the mine which is called "the lower level was cleared out to the fore breast of the mine, so that the lead could be seen. The agreement was signed on the 18th of December, 1861, and the sum of £5 was paid down by the defen- dants to the plaintiff. The learned counsel said he may state that in order to get better terms from the agent than a more stranger could be supposed to obtain, the plaintiff made application for the take note conjointly with Morris Roberts; but he had nothing to do with it in reality, and he afterwards worked in the mine for Morris Robfrts.Maminer, for which he was paid week- ly wages. The take note was obtained, and the defen- dant then paid the plaintiff X95, which, with the X5 received when the agreement was signed, made up the first JE100. Perhaps also he had better explain to the jury that although the agreement was signed on the 18th of December, 1861, it was really dated back to the 1st of November of the same year. The reason for this was, that the rents of the estate were paid half yearly, that is, on the 1st of May and the 1st of November in each other; so that it was made a rule if any person oc. cupied any miue, &c, between either of those dates he would have to pay rent for half a year up to either of the above named rent days. Well, the mine was taken possession of by the defendants, and men were employed In clearing out the lower level according to the agree- ment. When, however, they had got to about a yard from the front, the work was stopped by Morris Roberts, for some time; but the level was cleared out at length to the fore breast of the mine. When this was done, plaintiff and others, whom we shall call to give evidence, saw lead there, so that the plaintiff was then entitled to the second 9100, %s ,tgi-eed upon. The jury would please to bear in mind that it would not matter what quantity of lead was there; it was not a question of quantity; but if lead was seen there at all after the level was cleared out, his client was entitled to the money according to the terms of the agreement. The plaintiff had made application to \Iorris Roberts for the payment of the money, but he had not received it. It would soem, however, that Morris Roberts re-sold the mine to Mr. Cain Parry, solicitor to the defendant in this action; and in a letter which he should produce written by Morris Roberts to the plaintiff, and dated 28th of Sep- tember, 1863, the defendant said he should pay the money due as soon as he could settle accounts with Mr. Parry, adding that be had failed getting his money of Mr. Parry by fair means, who, he said, complained that the mine was turning out very badly. The plaintiff's attorney, Mr. Griffith, also wrote a letter to Mr. Parry on the subject, and received au answer, which should be read to the jury. The matter, however, was not between the plaintiff and Mr. Parry, but between the plaintiff and Mr. Morris Roberta. The latter had bought the mine of the plaintiff for £ 200, and had sold it to Mr. Parry, for £a80, so that when he should pay the plaintiff in full, he would gain CI80 upon the transaction. The agreement was then read by Mr. Powell (who translated it literally into English), the exact words of the transla- tion being objected to by Nir. Mclntyre, who, however, declined to call in another interpreter. The Foreman of the jury, Mr. R. Isaac Jones, Tre- madoc, ailetl his Lordship if the agreement should be read to the jury in the language in which it was written. His LOltDSHIP-Dut it is I and not you, who will be called upon to put a construction upon the words of the agreement. Mr.'Jones said it was not for the sake of the construc- tion that he asked the favour; but many of the jury could better understand it in Welsh. His Lordship-Oh! very well-lot it be read in Welsh This was accordingly done by Mr, 1 owell. Wm. Jon 's, plaintiff, was first called and examined by Mr. Horatio Lloyd-I am a miner, living near Bet- tws-y-coed. I know the Glyn Lend Mine It is between Capel Curig and Bettws. My late brother and I searched for lead for 25 years. In the year 1837 we had a take note for 3 years from the agent of Lord Wil- loughby d' Eresby. We worked 20 years without a take note. Mr. McIntyre said the take note ought to be produ- ced as it was a document in writing. J Take note produced and sworn to by the plaintiff, who had attached his mark to it After hi. Lcrd?hip had o\'ermled ?n objection made by Mr. Mclntyre m to the take note, only being three years, whilst the mine was sold to the defendant in 1861, the plaintiff having worked the mine afterwards without a take note by permission of the agent of the estate, Witness continued —In 1860 we applied to the agent for leave to go on working, and we were allowed to go on. The royalty was one-eighth, which was paid to Lord Willoughby d' Eresby. In] 811], a man called Edward Lloyd came to u. In consequence of that Morris Roberts came to us. This was on the 18th of Dec., 1861, Mr. Powell, who a'erpreted, here read the agree. ment, which was written in W elsh, in English to the t court. The agreement stated that W. Jones sold the work for Z200 to the parties named, aud that he was to receive £ 100 when Morris Roberts received the take note and Xloo when the lower level was cleared in front to see the lead. I received A:5 when the agree- meut was signed. Witness continued—AH the four parties were there, and inspected the mine when the agreement was made, but Morris Roberts was my man. They could not see the end of the level there-it was impossible. There were two levels. We could not see the end because it was filled with stones. I received C5, when the agree- ment was signed. It had been worked for a long time, but it was filled tip with rubbish. I afterwards received i'95 of Morris Roberts. Soon after this agreement was signed, 1 got a take note in a little time afterwards It was given to me by Lord Willoughby's agent, and I gave it to Morris Roberts. Mr. Mclntyre said the take-note was dated the 1st of November, 1861. Mr. Horatio Lloyd here read the take-note agree- ment, Witness—After this the mine was worked by Morris Roberts' people, and I was there. I was working for wages for M. Roberts. The take-toote was given to me and Morris Roberts; because my name was at Gwydir on Lord Willoughby's books. I was working in the mine for Morris lloberts until I received t:5 2..13d. for. wages. A man named Will. Davies was employed in clearing the lower level. Ed. Roberts' son and I finally cleared it out in Mr. Parry's time. f can't tell the date when it was finished, but it was about a year ago. I saw lead in three places. I have applied to Morris Ho- berts for the t: I 00 many times since the lead was seen. He never said he would not pay but he asked me to wait. Mr. Edwards' son asked me to wait. I received a letter from Morris Hoberts-I can't read it-but I gave it to .\1 r. Griffith, the attorney. Mr. Powell translated the letter into English. It was dated 18th December, 1863, the substance of which was stated by Mr. M. Lloyd in his opening address. Cross-examined by ir. Mclntyre—The time I re- ceived that letter the lower level was not cleared. When the agreement was drawn up I had shewn Morris Roberts as much of the level as I could. There was lead in the forebreast of the mine—there was a little on one side had they been in the vein they would have seen more. We were on some branch of the vein. I meiln b sav that there was a vein there. I did not say on the 23rd of December, 186.5, that there was no lead there. I did not say so to David Lloyd, nor do I know who David Lloyd is I was there with Morris Roberts and a man, but I did not say there was no lead. His LORDSHIP here said that his construction of the agreement was that the level was to be cleared to the end of the level, so that they may see the lead. Mr. Mclntyre said they could not "see" lead if lead were not there. If his Lordship ruled against him on that point he should ask him to iusert another plea. His LORDSHIP said he should reserve the point. Witness—Morris Roberts did not say to me if I shewed him lead he would pay me the XIOO. I was shewing him lead then. Yes, lead was seen in the fore breast of the mine. I offered to take 1:50 if he would pay it ready. He did not say he would pay me nothing if lead was not found on the forebreast. I told them I thought there was more lead if they would drive the level further. They have got a level further on, and they have found lead. I don't know how much, for I was not there. Edward Roberts and I went to the mine and there was lead there. I don't know what he said, but it was impossible for him to say there was no lead because there was some. Re-examined by Mr. Morgan Lloyd-It was a year or more before the level was cleared after the mine was sold but I cannot state exactly. I sold the work in 1861, and as far as I can say it must be about 3 years after before the level was cleared. Edward Davie3—L am a miner, and have been em- ployed by Morris Roberts to work in the Glyn Lead Mine. I have been there since the level was cleared. There was lead there. Cross-examined by Mr. Mclntyre—I saw it in the roof -—not in the forebreast. I did not measure how far it was from the forebreast. I did not see the end at all. I did not measure how much lead there was. By Mr. M. Lloyd—The lead on the roof was beyond where I worke(l. It must have been near the fore- breast. This was about 3 weeks ago. Robert Roberts- aID a miner living at Capel Carig. Saw the lower level after it was cleared. Saw lead there at the top and bottom. It was fresh to the level. (This witness then produced a pretty fair specimen which he said he got himself on the first day.) By Mr. McIntyre-It was from nearer to the bottom than the top of the mine. Yes, this is all I've brought —isn't that enough ? (Laughter.) Rees .Tones-I am a son to Wm. Jones, the plaintiff. I worked in the mine. Remember the lower level being cleared out. It has been cleared since the year 1863. We applied for the X 100 due to my father to Morris Roberts, by letter. We received this letter in answer to my letter. The level had been cleared, or we could not have claimed the money. Besides, 1 saw it cleared myself, and there was lead there. By Mr. NIclt)tyre-I saw lead on the f,)i,ebrea,,t-on tho npper part of it, and on the left side, I was with Evan Kogers and Edward Roberts in the mine. I was not asked to point out the lead; but I saw some and pointed it out to Edward Roberts. I didn't say there was no lead there, and that the lead was running in a different direction. I did say that I expected it to run stronger a little further on. Rogers was my partner- he is now ill. The level was cleared in the year 1863-1 but I can't say the precise date. Mr. Griffitli-I am attorney for the plaintiff, and also for the estate of Lord Willoughby. The take-note was given after the 20th of January, 1862. It is customary to charge rent from the 1st of November until the 1st of May. I wrote to Mr. Cain Parry and I received Ian answer. I wrote because Mr. Parry had guarranteed the payment of this money. Mr. Mclntyre then rose and addressed the court for the defence, in his usual ingenious and eloquent manner. To the first plea he said he should plead non-assumpsit, and should claim a non-suit. Secondly-the plaintiff at the time of sale did not hold a take-note, inasmuch as the one he obtained in 1857 was only for three years, and its term had expired before the agreement was made with the defendants in December, 1861. Thirdly —the defendant Morris Roberts was not in the sole possession of a take-note as stipulated in the agreement, as .the plaintiff Wm. Jones signed it conjointly with himself, and so they were jointly licensed. Fonrthly- the plaintiff did not sell the mine to the defendants, for so long as he continued to have a share in the mine as a partner he could not divest himself of a personal interest in it. And fifthly—the said mine was not cleared to the end of the lower level so that lead may have been seen, and also that lead was not seen at the front of the mine after the level was cleared out. A discussion then arose chiefly between the Judge and Mr. Mclntyre as to the precise meaning of the Welsh words of the agreement, rendered in English "so that the lead may be seen at the front"Nlr. Mclntyre maintaining that unless lead were found at the forebreast of the mine the agreement was void. His LORDSHIP did not understand it in that light. He thought what was meant was, that the level was to ,td whicli w,,vi to be be cleared out so as to get to the lead, which was to be seen. It does not state where the lead was to be found —at the end or further on. If lead were tnere some- where, Mr. Mclntyre would be nowhere. (Laughter.) Mr. Mclntvre -I' ut the lead is "tohe seen;" but if there was no lead, how could it be possibly seen ? Mr. Mclntyre then argued at some length in favour of the objection stated by him at the commencement of his address and then proceeded to call his witnesses in order to prove that when the level was cleared out to the front, no lead was to be seen there, at least not any in the front of the mine. Morris Roberts—lam one of the defendants in this action. I have driven the lower level to the end. There was no lead there -not any at the front. I was in the mine with the plaintiff Wm. Jones. He was with me and D. Lloyd at the forebreast. I asked hi,,i to shew me some quantity of lead. I told him I'd^ ve him a £100 if he would shew me any lead on the f -rebreast He did not shew me any. After the takf-note was obtained the plaintiff did not share the profit-, for there was none for anybody. He was paid wages as a work- man. By Mr. M. Lloyd-Nfr. C. Parry has been working the mine since he bought it of me. The plaintiff was paid wages to the very last. I received from Mr. Parry for the mine ;e 150 -tliii has been paid. I went to Mr. A, h liB, of Ruthin, to apply for the remainder. Edward Roberts—I am son of the last witness. There was no lead in the forebreast. He said the level had gone further. There was no lead for anybody to see. By Mr. M. Lloyd—I saw lead about two yards from the end, about 4 months ago. John Wynne—1 am a mine agent and have been so for 40 years I inspected this level. There waS no lead on the forebreast. There was no place for lead at the forebreast, as there was no joiut in the rock. By Mr. Morgan Lloyd—I saw it last Saturday, j By Mr. -tlclutyre—I also examined it in August, 1863, when there was a little bit of lead in the roof. John Friar--I aiu a mine agent. I have examined the mine several times from 1862 till 1865-and on last Saturday. There was no lead there. By Mr. M. Lloyd—I had some intention of dealing with the mine myself in the year 18(;3. (Road two of his own letters, written to the plaintiff asking him to "dodge" the mine for the sake of selling it, ,uld to pro- cure a "large lump" for Mr. Parry, of Mold !) David Lloyd- am a shopkeeper living at Llanbedr, in the county of Denbigh. Went to the mine in De. cember, 1863. Saw no lead at the forebreast—not a dust. Morris Roberts asked him to shew him some lead, and lie should have the EIOO any day. He re- plied that old people said there was lead there, but that he had never seen it himself. I am no relation of the plaintiffs Lloyds. Edward Lloyd-I know the Glyn mine-the lower level I helped to clear the level. There was no lead on the forebreast. By Mr. M. Lloyd-There was a little lead on the roof-two or three yards from the forebreast. Mr. Mclntyre then summed up in his usual spirited manner, aud maintaiued that his witnesses had clearly proved the case in favour of the defendants. Mr. Morgan Lloyd replied, and said he differed with his learned friend as to what the point was, and which he said his Lordship would decide between them. He should mention first the words of the agreement, that his client had to clear the rubbish until lead was seen, and not merely on the forebreast. All the witnesses proved that there was lead at least some yard or two from what they call the forebreast, and therefore this clearly proved his case. His LORDSHIP then summed up, and after stating the leading facts of the case, remarked that the chief ques- tion was whether there was lead there or not, and it would be for the jury to decide that point. That there was some lead there had been admitted by all the wit- nesses on both sides, only they differed as to where it was, as some saw it in the roof, others in the bottom, and s(litie on the breaat of the mine. He concluded by desiring the jury to answer the following questions as lie asked them, one by one, so as to avoid confusion :— Question—Are you satisfied there was lead in the lower level ? Answer of the jury—Yes. Question—Do you consider that the lead was worth workin? ? The Foreman —In the lower level, my lord ? His LORDsHIP-Yes, in the lower level. A nswer- Yes, we consider that the lead there was worth working. Question—In your opinion, was the lead in the fore- breast of the mine worth working ? Aniwer- %N'e cannot answer that question, my lord. A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff for fIQO, subject to the points of fact raised by Mr. Mclntyre to be considered. SPECIAL JURY CASg- CARNARVON1 HARBOUR TRRST. Jackson v. Williams.—This action was brought agaiust Mr. Thomas Williams, shipbuilder, Carnarvon, for tres- passing upon a certain piece of ground, between high and low water mark, and adjoining the said harbour, and which ground, it was asserted, was the property of the Trustees of the Harbour. The action was brought in the name of Mr. Jackson, the surveyor of the Trust; but the Harbour Trustees were the real and bona fide plaintiffs, Mr. Mclntyre and Mr. Morgan Lloyd, instructed by Mr. Poole, Carnarvon, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Coxon and Mr. Horatio Lloyd, instructed by Mi. Llewelyn Adams, Ruthin, for the defendant. The following gentlemen comprised the SPECIAL JURY. I Mr, J. D. Whitehead, Glangwna, Uanrug, foreman. Mr M. T. Edwards, timber merchant, Conway. Mr. K. M. Griffith, J iglwtrect, Bangor. Mr. E. Moore, Ioore House, Llanrfuilno. Mr. W. E. Morris, merchant. Portmadoc. Mr. E. Anwyl Owen, Parcia, Criccieth. 1tIr. T. T. Parry, shipbuilder, Bangor. Mr. W. Prieliard, Tanycoed, ditto. Mr. B. Wyatt, Portmadoc. The counts in the indictment were, in suostance, as follows- -that the defendant, Mr. Thomas Williams, had occupied a certain portion of the foreshore of the Hap. bour, which by the conditions of an Act of Parliament, was the property of the Harbour Trustees; that by erecting buildings, buildiug vessels, &c., on the said land, he had hindered and prevented the said Trustees from improving, enlarging, &c., the said harbour, as they had received powers to do in the said Act of Par. liament; and also that he bad committed a trespass upon the said harbour. To these indictments the de. fendant pleaded not guilty; that the Trustees had no right to the land in question, as they had not fulfilled the conditions of the Act by which the right to the said soil would be vested in them; and also that no hindrance existed to prevent the Trustees from carrying out any works or improvements in the harbour which they may have deemed necessary. Mr. Mclntyre then stated the case to. the jury at length. The question, he said, which had been raised by the Trustees, was of considerable importance to the public, for the action was really brought by the Trus- tees of the Carnarvon Harbour Trust, against the defen- dant, Mr. Thomas Williams, who was indicted for tres- passing upon land belonging to the Harbour Trust, the spot in question being on the side of the river Seiont, near to the Gas Works, and to which place the tide flowed daily. Some years ago, a good deal of rubbish was thrown upon that part of the foreshore; but an Act was obtained (33 Geo. 3rd, cap. 123) which gave powers to the Trustees to dredge the river, and to remove the silt and other matter wh' had accumulated there, and to keep the harbour clean, together with other powers conferred upon them. Subsequently to this, another Act was passed (49 Geo. 3) by which these powers were greatly exteuded, as it authorised the Trustees to erect and make quays, wharves, &c., upon the foreshore, and the soil Upon which such works were erected would, when such works were completed, be the property of the Harbour Trust for ever, and such powers were defined in the 16th section of such Act, to extend to any works which may be required for the good of the harbour, and on what can be reclaimed from the sea. It was folly to deny that such works, when constructed, did not belong to the Trustees. It was clear that the whole of the harbour reclaimed from the sea, and that may hereafter be reclaimed, belonged, by virtue of the said Act of Parliament, to the Harbour Trust. The defend- ant by taking possession of a part of the land between high and low water mark, had prevented the Trustees from taking possession of it, and this he was not author- ised to do. The facts of the case were as follows. In 1850 Mr. Owen Jones, the defendant's landlord, pur- chased a piece of slanting rock, near to the Nantlle railway. This piece contains some 1147 square yards, and is marked B on the plan. That piece is separated by the Nantlle railway, and some parish land, from the laud which was bought by Mr. Owen Jones, in the year 1850. After he had made that purchase, he proceeded to build a small wall which enclosed a portion of the foreshore in front of the rock which he had purchased, and between high and low water mark. The attention of the Trustees having been called to this wall, a notice was sent by them to the defendant, ordering him not to proceed any further with it. This letter was written by Mr. Jackson, surveyor to the Trustees, and was dated the 3rd of September, 1850. After receiving this notice Mr. Owen Jones discontinued the building of the wall in question. This ahewecl a very strong act of owner ship on the part of the Harbour Trustees. Still further to shew their right, the Trustees, in the year 1856, ordered a quantity of building! stones, &c., to be placed upon the ground claimed by the plaintiff; and in the year 1861, a wall was built around the wall made by Mr. Owen Jones, higher, and which entirely surrounded it, with an intention to make a quay, where vessels could come up, and goods be placed upon. Another circumstance, too, took place in the month of November last, which clearly showed that the defendant acknow- ledged the claim of the Trustees to the ground. He was building a vessel on the ground, but he could not launch it without pulling down a portion of the wad which had been erected by the Harbour Trust. He promised that if lie should have permission he would put the wall in the same condition as when he took it down. To this application Mr. Jackson WM directed to return an answer granting it upon the conditions named, and in this letter it was clearly stated and as- sumed that the quay was the property of the Trustees. Was it likely he would have accepted the permission saddled with such an assumption had he doubted the ownership of the ground ? Mr. Mclntyre concluded a very lucid address by observing that until 1850 the tide flowed and reflowed upon the foreshore, which had been partially enclosed by the wall built by Mr. 0. Jones; and in the year 1856, the Trustees commenced carrying out the provisions of the Act of Parliament; and in 1861 the wall was completely built, and eutiroly enclosed that of Mr. O. Jones's. Llewelyn Turner, Esq., was then examined, as a wit- ness, by Mr. Morgan Lloyd. He said—I am mayor of Carnarvon, and have been so for six years in succession. Am also one of the Trustees of the Carnarvon Harbour, having been first elected in the year 1848. Am likewise Commodore of the Yacht Club, which is connected with this town. Have had occasion to inspect the harbour frequently, and, in fact, I know every corner of it. [lave also made plans of the harbour, which have been sanctioned by the Admiralty. Hemember the time be- fore the harbour was made. The tide was used to flow over it every day, and even during neap tides. The tide runs up beyond the embankment, and it would cover every inch of the ground claimed by Mr. Jones. Carnarvon was made a bonded port in the year 1842. ilfr 0. Jones is one of the Trustees of the Harbour, and he is the present plaintiffs landlord. Remember very well a piece of rocky ground near to the Nantlle rail- way.beingoceupiedby Mr. Jones in 1850. It is it steep bank between the turnpike road and the tramway. Hceollect him bllilding a wall at. the spot in dispute. The wall so built never excluded the sea at high water. It is open at both ends. Remember at that time the circumstance being brought to the notice of the Trlls, tees. After it was built, rubbish was deposited upon the ground inside of the wall, both from the sea and the land-ballast from the ships, and other rubbish. Know of no orders ever having been given to any person to deposit rubbish there. The Trustees stopped ships put- ting rubbish there at the desire of Mr. O. Jones. In the year 1856, some'forty or lifty tons of stone wereput by the Trustees—they were placed upon the wall priti- cipally. Some of these stoues were carried away by the tide. The embankment commenced hy him, (Mr. Jones) was never completed by him—never. The present em- bankment was built by order of the Trustees, and out- side the wall built by Mr. Jones. It was completed in 1862. It was rather a slow operation—forming a por- tion of a continuous lin3 of wall. This quay is now completed like the other quays. The defendant, Thos. Williams, took possession after the first wall was made, and he put timber upon it. He now builds vessels there, and since it has been made There are sheds there occasionally on purpose to shelter the workmen. Have myself seen vessels being built upon it, and one was launched only a few months ago. The wall built by kir. Jones is now hidden by the ballasting. Cross-examined by Mr. Cozon-Ttie land in dispute is marked 1147 on the plan. The vessel last alluded to by me was built upon it. The piece of land marked 1505 is claimed by Mr. Peter Ellis, and the defendant, Mr. Williams, occupies the greater part of that, and I believe he occupies the three pieces you have named. Wall present at the meeting of the Trustees when a reso- lution was passed to purchase No. 707 (as marked on the plan). Next to No. 1505, the land is owned by Mr. Asshetou Smith. The wall enclosing that piece was built so many years ago that I dont remember. Know Lord Newborough's land-it is below the slate yard. These were built before I was born. Recollect before the slate yard was there, as it has been made only a few years ago. The slate yard is simply a continuation of the line of quays. Yes, Lord Ncwbórongh's land goes down to t!le water's edge. It was built, I repeat, before I remember. In reference to No. 707, they did nothing with the exception of building the wall and filling the empty space up. All are up to high water mark. Mr. Coxon then read a resolution relating to the land oocupied by Mr. Peter RUis and Mr. Hugh Jones to shew that they were permitted to possess land in the harbour. Mr Turner continued—The wall binding them was built by the Trustees in 1862. Remember that in 1849 before Mr. Owen Jones took possession of the shore ground, including the spot in question, there were dis- cussions at the meeting of the Trustees, and I myself took part in those discussions, and certainly in several when Mr. Jones was present before he bought the rocky piece of land. Cannot, particularly remember what w u done at a meeting held on the 9th of February, 1849. His LOKDSHIP here intimated that it did not signify what was said or done at any meeting, for unless it were embodied in a. resolution, it would not be legal evidence. A resolution would be evidence. Re-examined by Mr. McIntyre-Remember Lord Newborough having a front quay. It was banked be- fore I was born. The tide has not flowed over them for more than 20 years. The embankment there was begun many years ago. l Mr. J ohn .Tackson-I am Clerk to the Harbour Trus. tees. In 1050 I recollect Mr. 0. Jones building a w.Il on the shore between high and low water mark, and' by the direction of the Trustees I wrote a letter,.to Mr. Jones about it. It was dated tlie 3rd of September, 1850. ( The letter was here put in and read. The substance of which was to oraer him to desist from going on with the wall.) Rubbish from time to time was thrown up n this pier, and the Harbour Trustees ordered that timber should not be placed upon it. In 1856, stones for building a wall were ordered to be put upon the spot for the purpose of building a wall, and orders were given not to permit ballast to be placed upon the shore side. The wall was commenced in 1861, and the wall has be-in completed. It was finished in 1862, and orders were then given that ballast should be thrown upon it to biml it. All the land in dispute is now quite reclaimed from the sea. On the 24th of October, 1864, I received a letter from the plantiff, Mr. Williams. It was addressed to the, Trustees of Carnarvon Harbour. The letter was read by the Judge's Clerk, the sub- stance of it being to ask leave to take down some part of a stone wall in order that a vessel might be launched, Mr. Jackson's letter in reply was also read, in which the application was granted. Mr. Jackson intimated th;tt the letter written by him was not written by the direction of the Trustees, as there was no meeting and an answer was required at once. By Mr. Coxon-The stones placed on the shore in 1856 were brought for the purpose of building a wall. There was an old wall there over which the water flowed every tide. The letter sent by Mr. Willia-i,3 to the Trustees referred to the land in dispute. There is a small yacht building on No. 707-lanti belonging to Mr. Peter Ellis. By Mr. Mclntyre—The old wall I referred to was built by Mr. O. Jones in 1850, and to which we paid no attention and built around it. Mr. Wm. Owen—1 am harbour master at Carnar- von and have been so since 1843. I remember Mr. 0. Jones building a wall and of his stopping building it. The wall was left in an unfinished state by Mr. Jones. I know of ballast being thrown there on the land side, but I dont recollect receiving any instruc- tions to remove it. I received instructions from Mr. Jackson to throw ballast insids the front wall. In January 1863, I placed a quantity of timber on the spot now in dispute. It is there still. There are poles sticking up in the ground. Sheds have also been erected by Mr. T. Williams. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Coxon then rose to address the Jury for the de. fence. He said, the first count charged the defendant with trespasing. Ho wished to ask his Lordship from the evidence which had been produced, whether there was any trespass or not ? His LOKDSHIP—What do you think, Mr. Coxon! There are poles there yon know. (Much laughter.) Mr. Coxon, after a little joking about" piles versus poles," proceeded with his argument and endeavoured to shew that the Trustees had no power under the Act cited by his learned friend Mr. Mclntyre, to claim possession of the land unless they had completed the erection of the quay and made it fit for use. They would have power as Trustees to regulate the harbour, and everything relating to it as Trustees, but that was a different thing from their claiming to be the absolute owners of the soil. There were certain things to be done by them before such a claim was given to them, andhe maintained thattheyhadnotfulfilled the conditions named in the Act. He then denied that any obstruc- tion had been caused by the defendent so as to prevent them from improving or enlarging the harbour as much as they pleased. It was monstrous to suppose that a few poles could form an obstruction. In fact it amounted to nothing. His LORDSHIP—Yes, it is so small that 1 cannot see it. (Laughter.) After somj remarks from Mr. Mclntyre, His LORDSHIP said, he wished Mr. Coxon to say whether he considered a ship with poles around it upon a quay or wharf, wa no obstruction ? Mr. Coxon said, he would stand upon the 2nd count, which ttives power to the Trustees to hold possession of the soil, when quays, wharves, &c., have been erect- ed and completed upon it, but not till then. It beiug now six o'clock, His Lordship adjourned the Court until Wednesday morning at 9 o'clock. Y/KDNESDAY. The learned Judgo took his seat this morning a few minutPS after 9 o'clock to conclude the hearing of the Carnarvon Harbour dispute case, which excited much interest in the town and neighbourhood. The mem- bers of the Special Jury were all in their places, punctual to time. Mr. Coxon then addressed the Jury for the defence, and reiterated the arguments which he had made use of on the previousday.but with greaterforce and cogency of reason. He denied that the foreshore belonged as a matter of course to the Crown for although the right to the land betweeu high and low water mark might be presumed to belong to the Crown, still indivi- dual had their rights as well; and he contended there. fore that no Act of Parliament could make conditions. granting the ownership to a public body, unless the Crowa itself proved its right. Ho then referred to the Cemmaes shore right case, in which Mr. W. Bulkeley Hughes and his friend Mr. Mclntyre both cevered themselves with glory by successfully resisting the en- croachments made upon the rights of individuals by the Crown; aud now he found his friend taking the side of the Cnnvu against the people. He then 'vent on side of the Ci-o,vn t,.) say that Mr. Jones was willing to tako r, fair price for the land; but it appeared to him to be very hard that whilst other people were permitted to have (na). and wharves on the nide of the harbour upon land re- claimed by them from the foreshore, no one v/as pro- ceeded against but himself, and the 2rustees -vera even offering to purchase some land obtained in precisely the same manner as Mr. Joues had got his. This he looked upon es p, very great hardship, and especially as he was willing to sell his property to the Trustees for a reason- able pricu The harnel Counsel, in the course of his remarks, said, he believed he knew why it was that the Trustees were GO anxious to get possesion of this little property. It was not so much to improve the harbour or to make quays, &c., for the accommodation of the public, be. cause, if they had wished it they could have done this many years ago, but railways were being made in all directions, and they thought doubtless, if they could get this piece of land, they should be enabled to sell it for a large sum, to expend, he had no doubt, for the good of the general inhabitants. He concluded by trusting the Jury would give a verdict in favour of his client. Mr. Owen Jones, examined by Mr. Horatio Lloyd- I live in Carnarvon now, and have resided in the town for the greater part of my life. Am 69 years of age. In 1810 the sea wall was made as far as point (pointed out on the plan, but the name of which we did not catch). The land now comprising Castle.square was then a piece of waste ground, without a building of any kind upon it. This land extended up to the river as far as the plan marked blue (on the plan). Mr. Garnons owned it. I was his agent. It was enclosed land, and I let it for him. I let below and above high water mark. The part belonging to Lord Newborough then had no wall, and the tide washed up to the hill side. The wall there was built in the year 1830, and buildiugs were erected upon it. The piece coloured pink on the plan belonged to Mr. Assheton Smith. In the year 1810, Mr. Smith had a very small harbour in which he kept his yao it. The wall was built by the Trustees, 33 years ago -the greater part and front by Mr. Smith's tenant. A piece of land belonged to Mr. Potter. In 1810 there was nothing there, and the sea washed up to where the sea is now. In the year 1828 Iliad the sole manage- meut of the construction of the Nantlle Railway. The line was made on the shore. only a small portion of the ground was excavated. The rubbish was put by me on the shore. I went and asked Mr. Potter for permission to do so and he gave me leave. lie was a Trustee of the Harbour at the time, and a shareholder of the rail- way. None of the Harbour Trustees ever luterferred with me respecting the said rubbish. I have got a con- veyance of some land from Mr. Potter to Mr. Brausby. It is dated July 2nd 1840, and is signed by Mr. Potter. it is now occupied by Hugh Jones and Mr. Robert Joues. (Plan handed to the Judge.) In 1849, I purchased a part of this land (Deed of con- veyance produced and the chief points in it read). I purchased it from Mr. Williams and Mr. Owens. By IJr. Mclutyre-Thos, Williams, Owen Owens, Evan Jones, and Wrn. Owen, were Mr. Potter's Trus- tees. It was sold to me by Mr. Wm. Owens. Mr. Mclntyre—the deed purposes to sell land num. bered 707, and not that marked 1147, the land in dis- pute. Mr. Coxon-The whole of the land belonged to Mr. Potter, and an act of ownership on one part of a proper- ty extends to the whole of it. Mr, Owen Jones proved Mr. Potter's ownership of the whole of the land there. Witness, cross-examined by Mr. Mclntyre—Mr. Potter owned all the land belonging to Hugh Jones, Robert Jones, aud Bryahelen. In 1849 it was Mr. Potter's property. The property sold to me was a part of what is marked green on the plan. All the land was pretty much of one character, namely, rocky. Mr. Mclntyre said he should object to a deed being received as evidence, when only a portion of the land described upon the map accompanying it, is in dispute. It was a question whether the part marked on the map did belong to Mr. Potter. His LORDSHIP said he did not see anything in the ob- jection. It was stated that the land was of one charac- ter, and therefore it must be a part. Mr. Morgan Lloyd then read the deed conveying the land from Mr. Potter to Mr. Bransby, which was sold for 1:225. Mr. 0. Jonee-I purchased the laud in 1849. was ab a meeting of the Trustees before- His LORDSHIP—I don't think you can go into that matter, nor give as evidence what was said at a meeting unless you produce a resolution. What, Mr. Coxon, do you mean to shew ? Mr. Coxoti-NVe mean to shew that it was in conse- quence of what was said at a meeting of the Trustees that Mr. 0. Jones purchased the land in question. The question of the foreshore was the subject of discussion, and it was the general opinion of the meeting that the Trustees had no right to the land between high and low water mark in the harbour. In consequence of that opinion, Mr. 0. Jones went and bought the laud in question. Mr. 0. Jones, continued—The meeting was held on the 10th of February, 1840, Mr. Thomas Turner being in the chair. Mr. Poole, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Jackson and others were present. These are all which I can remember at the present moment. At this meeting the question of the fore-hore of the Carnarvon Harbour and the right of the Trustees to it, came under discussion. Mr. Poole disclaimed in the most emphatic manner against the right, and said that they had no right to the shore. There was no contrary opinion expressed by anyone -at least so far as any expression of dissent went. This was before I bought the land. Since then I have deposited rubbish there, and have allowed others to do so. In 1850, I commenced to build a wall, and I remember a notice being sent to me from the Trustees. I did not stop building on thataccount; but I continued to build as the shore was filled up. The wall did not exclude the sea at high water, excepting where it was embanked. My tenant used to take vessels to the end point and I let the land in 1856 to Mr. Thomas Wil. liams. In November last, the Trustees ordered some palings to be put up, and I went and took a part of them down, and I gave the Trustees noticc to re- move them. By Mr. Vicrutyre-I made no memorandum of the meeting held in 1840 but I made a copy of the date afterwan < from the ILbute book. Mr. Mcintyre-Why, here is the minute book, and no meeting whatever of the Trustees was held on the 10th of February, 1840. Mr. O. Jones, I took down the date as read to me by the clerk. Perhaps it was held in 1850. Mr. McIntyre-Then in that case it would be held after you had bought the land. Mr. O. Jones—No, I nought the land after the meet- ing was held. By Mr. McIntyre-At that meeting I believe Mr. R. D. Williams, did move a resolution which went to affirm the right of the Trustees to the shore, but no one se- conded it, and the meeting was unanimous. Mr, Mcintyre-but how can the meeting be said to be unanimous if one of the members moved a resolution against it. Have you no other memorandum Mr. Jones ? Mr. Jones said he had- -it was a report of the meeting cut out of a newspaper which gave an account of the proceedings. I cut it out at the time and kept it. Mr. McIntyre-Well, I'm afraid we can't go so far as to receive reports in newspapers as evidence. We can't do that, His LORDSHIP remarked, smiling, it was the first time he ever knew a witness in Court bringing out a news- paper to refresh hieJmemory. By Mr. Mclntyre-I can't now recollect who was at the meeting more than I have named. The first person who had it (the land !) was Mr. Jones, Anglesey. Mr. Potter purchased it of Mr. Poole (father of the solicitor to the plaintift). This was in 1825, I think. The convey- ance from Mr. Poole to Mr. Potter was then produced, when the date turned out to be 1828. This deed was then read by Mr. Mclntyre, who said, that on the map attached to the deed, the land in dis- pute was not included in the sale. There were two colours on the map-a most unusual circumstance—and it was clear the foreshore was not included in it. Mr. 0. Jones--At that time the river Seiont flowed up to the parish i-op,d It took me to build the wall, which I did, abou! six months. I cannot swear that I built after I received the notice to stop from the Trus- tees, but I did not stop on thataccount, as I built at my own convenience Did not intend to build, but as -it (the foreshore) filled up. The wall was not finished up- on its top. Mr. Mclntyre then said that a meeting of the Trustees was held in February, 1849; but it was on the IJtb. day and not on the 10th, as stated by the witness. Mr. Owen J on-s -Well, I suppose that that was the day. The book was then handed to Mr. Jones, and looking over the minutes, he said that that was the meeting to which he intended to refer. Tli- resolution relating to the buoys, Mr. Joues said, gave rise to the discussion The buoys were on the Coedhelen side of the harbour—the opposite side to the town. I gaveC50 for the land. By Mr. Coxon—I have a newspaper in my hand. I got it two or three days after the said meeting was held. -yjjThe JUDGE objected to a [newspaper being imported into the case, but subsequently he allowed Mr. Coxon to re"d the resolution moved by Mr. Wil- liams. Thomas Williams—I occupy this land, under Mr. Owen Jones; also Unci belonging to Mr. Hugh Jones and Mr. W. Ellis. I was building a vessel in November last. Saw Mr. Jackson, and he said I must send a pa- per to the Trustees to rsk their leave to take down a pan. of their wall in order that I might launch the vessel. Told him I was tenant to Mr. 0. Jones. This was the defendant's case. Llewelyn Turner, Esq., recalled-I was at the meet- ing alluded to by Mr. O. Jones, on the 6th of February, 1849. What he states of the proceedings is untrue. There never was a meeting at which the rights of the Trustees to the foreshore was not strenously advocated by myself and Mr. R. D. Williams. This right I always most emphatically maintained, and I have always heard Mr. R. D. Williams do the same thing—he never made such a resolution as that stated in the newspaper, I am certain. By Mr. Coxon—I will swear that what is stated in the newspaper as illustrative of what was said by Mr R. D. Williams is entirely contrary to the truth. I never heard him say anything of the kind, or that he ever questioned the right of the Trustees to the foreshore. No I am certain he never did disclaim any rights of the Trustees to the shore. I will swear it, because it is so extraordinary, and so opposed to what he always said. If he proposed such a resolution, I should have remem- bered it, as it would have impressed itself upon my me. mory. Of course, I do not know what Mr. Williams said or did when I was not present, nor can I.say, for a certainty, owing to the length of time which has e lapsed, whether I remained in the meeting until it was con- cluded but I do not for a moment believe that he said anything of the kind. Mr. R. D. Williams was then called into the witness box. He said—I certainly did not say at the meeting referred to that the buoys placed in the harbour did not interfere with the rights of the frustees-nothing of the kind. In my opinion, the resolution in the newspaper referred to certain posts, and not to buoys. We want- ed to place some posts above high water mark, and of course that would be on land not belonging to the Trus- tees; and although by the provisions of the Act we possessed the power so to place them for the advantage of the shipping in the harbour, still we should have to make compensation to the owners of the property, and so respect the rights of individuals. By Mr, Coxo.i-My resolution had nothing whatever t) do with the buoys in the harbour-I never dreamt of such a resolution, nor did I ever, upon any occasion, dispute the rights of the Trustees to the land between hih and low water mark. Mr. McIntyre replied to Mr. Coxon, and reminded him that in the case of the Cemmaes shore right case, the parties had received a charter from the Crown it. self, which was a very different matter from a private individual taking possession of public property of his own free will and without any authority at all. His LORDSHIP then summed up and said he should state the case as clearly as he could to the jury, so that they may be enabled to come to a correct decision on the point. The defendant was indicted for building a wall and otherwise occupying a piece of ground in the Har. bour of Carnarvon, which the Commissioners held to be their property, as the representatives of the town. He had built a wall which enclosed land lying between high and low water mark, and after filling it up he had placed timber upon it, built vessels, and otherwise used it as his own property. Now he must tell them that all t e fore-shore, that is land lying between high and low i. ater mark was presumed to be the property of the Queen, that is of the public generally, and any right to any portion of it, if challenged, would have to be proved by the individuals laying claim to it. In the year 1850 the defendant in that action seemed to have purchased a piece of rocky land adjoining the harbour, of a man who had purchased it of a Mr. Potter, and Mr. Potter had bought it of Mr. Poole. The land sold by Mr. Poole to Mr. Potter, did not contain any part of the fore-shore as was proved by the map attached to the deed of Conveyance, and prudueed by Mr. Mclntyre; so that Mr. Potter, or his representative, re-sold what in fact he had never purchased. Such being the case, the defendant, in law, had no right whatever to the pro- perty in question, on the ground that he bought and paid" £ 50 for the land. What had not been legally ob. tained could not be legally bought or sold. Now, as it regards the claim of the Commissioners to the fore-shore adjoining the harbour. By an Act of Parliament, certain powers were given to the Commissioners; aud they were authorised and empowered to erect quays, piers, wharves, &c., on the fore shore for the benefit of the harbour; and when such erections had beeu made and completed, the ground on which they were built would be theirs for ever. It appeared to him that in this c; si the Commissioners had done that which was required of them by the act to do. They had erectel a wall, t) which vessels could go to, and they had tilled it up and male a quay, upon which goods could be placed. Although it may not be very smooth or level, yet it was certainly a quay which could be used for business pur- poses, and this lie believed was really what theact required of them to do. But it had been urged that other persons, private individuals, had got possession of a portion of the fore-shore, and had built quays, &c., upon it, and why, therefore, should the defendaut not have the privilege of doing so ? No doubt it seemed hard to Mr. Jones, and naturally so but they must know that if persons are left in possession of property for a certain number of years, the property becomes theirs, and very likely it was to in the present instance, and that know- ledge most probably prevented the Commissioners from trying to obtain possession by a course of law. As to the case referred to by the defendant's counsel, that was quite a different matter, as the grant by the Crown was not disputed, the question being as to the fact whether or not the right of ownership had been exercised during the previons 20 an. After some more observations of a similar drift, his Lordship concluded by putting the following questions to the jury to be answered by them Was the foreshore the property of the Crown ? Answer by the Jury— Yes. Secondly-Was the building of the wall by the Com- missioners done for the purpose of improving the har- bourl Answer—Undoubtedly, sir. Thirdly— Was the quay so far completed as to admit of vessels coming up to it to load and unload ? Answer—From the description we have heard of it we think it comes within the meaning of the Act; but some of us have not seen it. The JUDGE-That is a pity. I have been to see it four times myself. Fourthly-Do you believe that a trespass has been committed by. the defendant ? Answer (after some hesitation) *—Yes, we believe that a trespass has been committed. Damages were assessed at 40s. This concluded the business of the a&sizes. COUNSBL IN COURT. Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Swetenham, Mr. Morgan Lloyd, Mr. Coxon, Mr. Wynne Foulkes, Mr. Parkins, Mr. Horatio Lloyd, Mr. Hilton, Mr. I. Williams, and Mr Talbot Smith.