The North Wales Chronicle and Advertiser for the Principality

CARNARVONSHIRE ASSIZES. I The learned Judge (Mr. Baron Bramwell), arrived, in Carnarvon from Dolgelley about 9 o'clock on Monday evening last, and attended Divine Service on the following morning at St. Mary's Church, where the Assize Sermon was preached by the Sheriffs Chaplain, the llev. D. Bowles. The usual proclamation against vice and immorality having being reacl, the following gentlemen were sworn THE GRAND JURY. O. J. E. Nanney, Esq., foreman John O. Griffith, Fzq J. V. H. AVilliams, Esq John Morgan, F.¡q C. J. Sampson, Esq David Williams, Esq Jame. Wyatt, Esq JohnMUUngton.Esq C. Miller, E*i g;l:q Owen Griffit?, 2q Tho mm Churchill, Esq Robert D??i., Esq John Lloyd Jonea. Esq. ,BroombaU) Thomas Turner, Esq Owen Jonea, Esq 8 ?.D.,?b;;h Esq John LI Jones, Esq. ?D,g.i,,) John WiU?? ?' '?"? John Mae'Donald, E?q James Edwards. Esq Arthur Wyatt, Esq His LORDSHIP said that all the cases, with the excep- tion of one, were not of very great gravity. A person was charged with the wilful murder of his mother, and they would have to consider whether the poor woman died from his or her own act. There was very little doubt, it appears that she died, ami that from the effects of such a wound as made it ilJJpoBsiblc for it to have been inflicted by herself. It would be shewn to them that no one but the prisoner was present with the and that l?, was seen deceased at the time of her death, and that he was seen leaving the house with blood on his hands, which being proved to them in evidence, would warrant them to believe that she died through his wilful act, and to return a true bill against the prisoner. Probably evidence would also be brought forward that would in- duce them to think that he was insane; but the practice -and it was only a practice—was for the graull jury 1 not to throw out bills on the ground of insanity, leaving that question to be dealt with by the common jury. The other cases were one for bigamy, which would give them very little trouble. In the case of a man charged with house-breaking, or burglariously entering a mill, the question would mainly depend upon the identity of the property found upon the prisoner, and that stolen from the mill. Auother man was •charged with burglariously entering a dwelling house vitn intent to steal, winch imgut give tuem some trouble. Burglarly was committed between 9 o'clock at night and C in the morning, and must be done with an intent to commit a felony as it is supposed persons -who do break into houses at that time of night generally do not do so with laudable intent. But here the man seems to have gone to a place where the intentiun was nut so clear, which was to a bedroom where two women slept, and when interrogate! as to what what he wanted there the excuse made was, that he was particularly fund of women," (Laughter.) There was no doubt that he broke and entered the house, and if they were satisfied with his identity, the question was, what was the prisoner doing there ? The last was a case of stealing from the person. If they believed that the prisoner was privy to the concealment of the sovereigns by the wife, then they might return a true bill; but the prosecutor appears to have been so drunk that he could not say at one time what he had done with the money. With these observations he dismissed them to their duties. BIGAMY. Thomas Roberts, aged 35, pleaded guilty to having feloniously married one Anne Hoyle, Laura Roberts, his former wife to whom he was preziously married being then alive. Mr. Vaughan Williams for the prosecution, the prisoner being undefended. The following witnesses were called and examined on behalf of the prosecution :— Anne Koyle, his second wife, who said that she had known the prisoner 5 weeks before she married him Was a charwoman at a farm near Abergele. Prisoner came to that neighbourhood May last 12 month. Lived occasionally with him until he wa apprehended. Had j a house and furniture. Griffith Williams, parish clerk of Llanifhangel Pen- arth, said he knew the prisoner and his first wife, who lived together for some time, and had three children. He deserted her. Sentence-9 month's hard labour. STEALING BARLEV. Ishniael Jones pleaded not guilty to having broken into and entered the warehouse of Hielmrd Griffiths, at Llanllyfni, and stealing a quantity of barley and oatmeal therefrom. One of the witnesses who had given evidence before the magistrate3 having since b0comc insane, his deposi- tion was read by order of the Court, and several other witnesses having been exnlJJiued by Mr. Wynne foulkes (who appeared for the prosecution), His Loitusnir summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. THE WILFUL MURDER AT PWLLHELI. Our readers will recollect that, some three months ago, an atrocious murder of a mother by her son, a confirmed lunatic, was perpetrated at Pwllheli, the unfortunate victim being the relict of the Hev. Robert Jones, a es- leyan minister at that place. The unhappy prisoner (Robert Jones), described in the calendar as a druggist, 34 years of age, degree of instruction well, during his incarceration in the county gaol conducted himself with perfect decorum, appeared to be sometimes conscious of his awful position, though he believed himself through- out to have been an unwilling instrument in the hands of fate. When placed in the dock this morning, he looked around with perfect indifference, and shewed no signs of the least emotion. When charged by the Clerk of Assize with "the wilful murder of Mary Jones, at rwllheli," and repeatedly asked to say whether he was guilty or not guilt" he at last addressed the Court as follows:— Y ou want me to say whether I am gllllty of wilful murder. Time will explain whether it's a wilful murder or not. But no mortal here below can say what my motives were; God only can tell. It is the sovereign will of God that will pronounce judgment upon me, and not Bramwell. His LORDSHIP said the prisoner evidently could not realize the nature of a plea, aud directed the jury to inquire whether the prisoner was in a fit state to plead. Mr. MORGAN LLOYD, instructed for the prosecution, and Mr. M'JNTVRI:, retained on behalf of the prisoner, agreed to the course pointed out by his Lordship. Mr. LLOVD, addressing the jury, said the question for them to try wa, not whether Robert Jones was guilty or not guilty of wilful murder, but whether he was in Sach a state of mind as to be capable of making a plea. He thought it right that he should call before them the surgeon from Pwllheli, as well as a medical officer from the North Wales Lunatic Asylum at Denbigh, where the prisoner had been staying for some time previous to the last twelve months. Mr. H. Hunter Hughes said :-1 am a Burgeon, prac- tising at Pwllheli, in this county. The prisoner has been living there with his mother for the last twelve months. 1 saw him occasionally during that time; and from what I have seen of him to-day, and previously, I believe him to be a confirmed maniac. Mr. G. Turner Jones said:—I am the resident melli. cal oiffcer of the North Wales Lunatic AsylulII at Dea- bigh. The prisoner had been in the asylum at Denbigh about a twelvemonth ago. He escaped from there. He was a most decided lunatic. From what I have seen of him to-day, I am certainly of opinion that lie is not fit to take his trial. His LOKDSHIP remarked to the jury, though the pri- soner had the advantage of a Counsel, he had not the greatest of all hulftan pirvileges of being capable, from the state of his mind, to judgo of his own actions, and properly to defend himself. They had heard the evi- dence of the medical gentlemen examined, and they could see themselves that day that his conduct wa. not that of a rational being, in addition to the fact that tie bad been an inmate of the Lunatic Asylum at Kenrngn. The Jury, after a brief consultation, returned the fol- lowing verdict:—Our opinion is that he is not in a fit state to be pat upon his trial. The prisoner was then removed from the dock. BLTRGLATTY. I.. 77?M.< Z?'/f? !r.M'?' ?ed M. p eaded not gmlty to the charge ofMonioush?nd bu?anou.y breaking ..d enten.? the dwdUng.hou.e of Ma?aret  at Farchwiel, Caerhun, near Conway, with mteut to steal, on the ni,I,t of the 8th or Juno last. Mr. HORATIO LLOYD conducted the case for the pio- secution, aud the prisoner was detonaed by Mr. i LLOYD. 'M?'H. LLOYD briefly stated the bets of the CMC, in support of which he called the following witnesses Margaret Rowlands, the prosecutrix, said1 live at Farchwiel, near Conway. On the 8th of June, I went to bed about 11 o'clock at night; all the doors and win- dows were fastened at the time. About one or two o'clock I was awakened by hearing a iioise of some one in the lobby. I called to two of my eldest boys, when a man called out, Don't awaken the boys." It was the voice of the prisoner, who had lived with me as a servant Rome years ago. I told him to go out, but he a-nd, It J iihould go out, you would prosecute inc. He said he w?a man working at Cwmeigiau, and was very fond of women. A woman of the name of Mary Koberts lept with me that night, and I awoke her. e both jumped out of bed, when the prisoner said" W oulù 5 ou like me to half kill you." Mary Roberts went out of the room, when I lit a match, which the prisoner struct out with his hat. I thereupon got frightened, and j.umped •outside through the window. It was from a height of four or five yards. Did not see him after I had fastened all the windows; but when I came down, I found a pane of glass had been broken. Cross-examined by Mr. M. LLOYD-Remembered go- ing from Conway with the prisoner himself and his sister. When I lit the match, he was in the lobby having hold of the other young woman, Mary Roberts. He must have come into the house througn the parlour window. There is a bed in the parlour. By the Bench-Has some silver tea spoons kept in the parlour. Prisoner did not know where they were kept. Nothing had been touched or missed from there. Mary Roberts eaid-I was sleeping with Mrs. Row- lands on the 8th of June, who awakened me. Heard a man say, "Don't awaken the children." Was well ae. quainted with the prisoner. He took hold of me when I left the room. Cross-examined by Mr. LLoim-Took hold of me by the wrist. I am a married woman. William Rowlands, a police officer, deposed—I appre- hended tho prisoner on the morning of the 9th June. Charged hiw with burglariously entering the premises of Mrs. Rowlands. He said he had been courting on the previous night in a public house at Pontwgan. Cross-examined by Mr. M. LLOYD-He had been at Pontwgan that niglit. John Evans, Police Inspsctor, Conway-The prisoner when brought to Conway had marks of blood on his hands; there is I lood on the broken glass produced. Mr. M. LLOYD, on behalf of the prisoner, shewed that from the conduct of the prisoner, after he had entered the house it was evident that he had not the slightest intention of stealing as charged in the indictment. The prisoner was a respectable quarryman, and the prosecu- trix was the widow of a small fanner; therefore ho could not suppose that any excessive ambition was exhibited in his apparent attempt to pay his addresses to her, though done in rather a rough sort of a manner certainly. (Laughter.) From the days of Shakespeare downwards they must know that the patent was of courting young widows was rough but straightforward, unlike that of young ladies, which should be both geuteelandsmoothin the extreme. (Renewed laughter.) He admitted his client had not strictly observed the usual courting formality of a gentle tap at the window, but he thrust himself roughly forward through the window into the presence of the fair young widow. He denied not but that he did a thing which was very wrong and highly improper in him, but from the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution he contended that the prisoner's motives were sufficiently explained as could not warrant them to return a verdict that he entered Mrs. Rowland's dwelling-house with the intention of stealing. His LORDSHIP silid, whatever view the jury took of the prÍ8onC1"s intention, there WM no doubt of his identitv. or of his being a most impudent fellow. (Laughter.) He thought he was well punished for his impudence in being brought before them that day, bearing tl?? expense, and the ridicule ?f th?. present. | The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. I His LonDsuir added :—Whilst concurring with tho ver.liet given, it must be understood that not the slightest imputation is attached to the character of the prosecutrix. I should not at all be sorry to hear if the prisoner, some of these nights, walked into a horse-pond. (Much bughtM) STEALING FLTOSI THE PERSON AT BANC,OR. John Ilvyht*, residing at Uwalehln,Ü, Anglesey, pleaded not guilty to tho charge of having stolen five sovereigns from the person of Evan Rowhlnù3, a farmtr living in Anglesey. Mr. M'lutyre conducted the case for the prosecution; the prisoner being defended by Mr. Morgan Lloyd. Evan Rowlands, a farmer living in Anglesey On Thursday, the day before the horse sale, I came to Bangor with horses. Slept in the Three Salmons" public-housc, Prisoncr was there with mú. About seven o'clock Friday evening I gave the.laudlady the sum of zeD 7s. to keep for me. Left there in the morning, Prisoner and I went togetiler and got a glass at the Old England from there we went to the King's Head," where I went to sleep, and missed the train. We left there and went to Upper Baugor, and down to the Three Salmons," Found that he had lost five sove- reigns. Am certain I had my money before I went to I the" King's Head." Cross-examined by Mr. MORGAN LLOYD—Came to Bangor on Thursday and remained until Tuesday. Pri- soner was employed at the horse sale on Friday, but were together again oil Saturday. Sat down at the Old England;" prisoner sat on the right side of me there, and a girl on the left 1 Re-examined—The money I kept in the right-hand side, and were safe when I left the Old England." Abigael Parry.—Keep the" King's Head," Bangor. Prosecutor was rather drunl; on Saturday night, came into my house and John Hughes along with him. The latter was sober. They both were left in the kitchen, aud slept there. John Jones, a police officer at Bangor, Paid-From information received I went to Anglesey on Sunday, and searched prisoner's house. Heard his wife say her husband had only a two-shilling-piece, after being in Bangor the whole week. Found only a penny upon him, Cross-examined by Mr. Morgan Lloyd-Did not hear of the Old England being fined during the three years I have been stationed in Bangor. Griffith Jones, another police officer stationed in Ban- gor, said he went on Monday to Anglesey to apprehend the prisoner. Met himself and his wife; the latter of whom he observed stooping down close by a ditch. He shortly afterwards returned to the same spot, where covered over by dirt he picked up the purse produced, containing five sovereigns. lIIr. MORGAN LLOYD here addressed the jury, and said he would be able to prove how the prisoner became pos- sessessed of the said sum of money, and warned them not to convict upon the mere stupidity of the wife in at- tempting to conceal what was really their own. He called Thomas Hughes, the prisoner's uncle, who said he bought a horse and cart from the prisonerthe day before the policeman came to his house, for which he paid him. Two witnesses were called who deposed to having oc- casionally borrowed several suuis of money from the prisoner. Mr. MCIntyre having replied on the evidence adduced, His LOI;DSHIP summed up, and the Jury returned a verdict of Guilty. The prisoner was sentenced to ten mouths' hard labour. This concluded the criminal cases. CIVIL CAUSES. June Thomas v. Hugh Williams.-—This was an action brought by Jane Thomas, who claimed from Hugh Williams the possession of and the right to seven dwelling-houses situte in Llanfair-is-gaer, in this county. It appears that the question of the defence was in reality one of equity; but that the opinion of the jury upon certain facts was necessary for the case. It was alleged that a marriage settlement between Robert Jones and his wife was executed, previous to the lease being made, and that with that money the property was bought, which came to the survivors. Mr. Coxon and Mr. M'lutyrej for plaintiff; Mr. Morgan Lloyd for defendant. Several witnesses having been examined on both sides, and technical objections raised by the learned counsel, before any question was submitted to the jury. His LORDSHIP ruled in favour of the plaintiff, leaving the defendant the power to move for any question of fact for the jury upon the evidence generally. A SrCCIAL JURY CASE. Nantlle Sail my Company v. R. R. Roberts.—Mr. Bevau and Mr. Horatio Lloyd for plaintiffs. Mr. M'lutyre and Mr. M. Lloyd for defendant. Mr. Horatio Lloyd having stated the declarations, Mr. BEVAN said that the plaintiffs in this case were the Nantlle Railway Company, and the defendant Mr. R. R. Roberts, of Carnarvon, a gentleman who had recently puchased some property close to that town, and abutting on the railway. The Company had brought forward that action to assert their right to a a wall built by them upon their property. In order to construct that line it was necessary that the Company should become entitled to the land over which it went, and inasmuch as the railway would have to cros3 over the property of Brynhelen, the Company applied to Mr. Poole to sell them a Hufficient portion of land for that P,u1"e, He did so. By a clause of an Act of Parlia- ment the elnnpany were required to eroct fences along the land tlmmgh which the railway ran, and wall, were accordingly built on most of their paths. At the time they were going to erect a wall on Bryn. helen property, Nr. Poole was about selling it to a gentleman of the name of Mr. Preece. That gentleman desired to have the superintendence of that wall himself, which, as a friend of his, Air. O. Jones granted. The wall was completed under the direction of Mr. Preece, who applied to the company for the ex- pense ?3o incurred in its erection. A bill was presented to, and paid by, the company, which he would read to theCourt:—"TheNant!ieHaUwayCo.toR.EllM&Co. To making a wall on the milway, from the wall of Ma- chine House, 143 yds., £ 19 15s." The money ,,u paid to Mr. Preece, whose signature would be proved to be that in the receipt. He should produce the minutes of the company, and by the 64th section of the company's acts, the minutes were made evidence, and in those mi- nutes the said payment was made. The wall built and mid for, the company frequently had been in the habit of repairing it, and trimming the top of the hedges, and which was always treated as part of the railway. There seemed to have been no doubt of that fact until the 11th of Attgust last, when Mr. Robert having bought the property, and somehow or another ascertained that Mr. Preece had paid for the building of that wall, which he had no doubt done as agent to the company. The defendant was about pulling down this wall, and in the course of re-building it, when Mr. Preston, the lessee of the line heard of it, and he immediately went there, ac- companied by his clerk, who acted as interpreter (the defendant not understating English.) A notice was given and explained to him. At that time her appeared willing to desist; but after consulting his friends, he sent" letter to the manager of the Nantlle Railway, in which he asserted his rights, and said he would proceed with the work. A few days afterwards, the company received a letter from Mr. R. D. Williams, defendant's solicitor, wherein it was stated that the wall was built 30 years ago by a laty, since dead, the owner of Bryn- helen property. It was true that it was built by Preece but at the expense of the company. Now, the whole case before the jury was reduced to this-was the wall in question the property of the Railway Company or the defendant ? He then called John William Davies, clerk to Mr, Preston, who said-On the 11th Aug., 1860, I went to the wall in question; saw Mr. Roberts and the workmen were em- ployed. Mr. Preston spoke to Mr. Roberts through me. Served Mr. Roberts with the notice the same day. In the course of the day received the letter produced. Mr. Richard Anthony Poole stated—I was formerly owner of Brynholen property. I sold a portion of it to Mr. Pottel, to whom I had given possession pre- viously. I did not build the wall in question. There was a wall before, but not the new one. There is a road outside the railway. Mr. Potter first purchased the property, then Mr. Preece who built a house there. Cross-examined by Mr. M-INTYRE—The land I con- veyed to the company, went down to the river Seiont. At first, the railway was made to the Seiont, but it was afterwards shifted. [A private survey made for the witness's own private use, produced.] The present parish road is very near the part originally intended for the railway. It was while the works were going on, that the land was conveyed. Somewhere about the same time, I conveyed a portion of the laud to Mr. Preece, or rather to Mr. Potter. He.examincd-Does not recollect the opening of the railway. Did not take notice of the railway line altered at Brynhelen. Cannot say whether the wall is on the land sold to the company, or the individuals mentioned. 31r. 0. Jones said he was manager of the Nantlle Rail- way from 1828 to 185.j. Since the time the railway was opened, the line opposite Brynhelen was not altered, unless the rails were moved a few inches or so. Knew Mr. Preece well. The bill produced is in Mr. Preeee's handwriting. Had a faint recollection of the wall being built. The impression upon my unind is, that Mr. Preece asked me to allow him to build the wall with his own men, in order to make it better. "Hobt.EllisanJ Co., llith Mar. '29, £1\1 los. Id. oil the back of the receipt, is in my handwriting. I have have no doubt I paid*Mr. Preece for making that wall. [Minutes of the 16th Mar. '29 produced and read.] The men employed by the railway repaired it. The quicks inside the wall, werc cut by our men, but not outside. Cross-examined by Mr. M'INTYRE—There is a wall from the machine to this gate. Cannot say whether R. Ellis built that wall. Had a wall raised by himself nearer to Carnarvon, and the width of the line there is about the sitine as that opposite Brynhelen. The owners of Brvnheiin repair about the gate, and a thorn hedge immediately behind the wall was constructed. Morris Williams having been employed for 16 years on the Nantlle Railway, said hehad gone inside the wall to clear away rubbish, and make room for water to go away. By the JUDOU—I got over by stepa, which are now taken away. The Company have always cut the fence, and repaired the wall. Cannot say how long since he repaired it himself by order of 1111'. Owen Jones. By Mr. l\{'INTYRE--We cut the fence repeatedly; did so when Mr. Turner lived there. He ordered us off, and we wcnt away. The Courthererose, and was adjourned to the follow- ing day. WEDNESDAY. The learned Judge took his seat oil the bencli shortly after 10 o'clock this morning, when the adjourned case was proceeded with. The following additional evidence was adduced on be- half of the plaintiff.- Morris Jones, employed on the railway for 16 years, said he often did repairs to the wall opposite Brynhelen property. He also cut the thorns growing on the wall, and made an outlet to the water overflowing to the machine. Mr. 0. Jones re-called—Knew the well above the machine house and St. Helen's well, the stream from which flows under the railway. There is no wall I coming from the well to the machine house. By Mr. M'INTYRE—Before paying the bill the wall mil It have been erected. Mr. BEVAN proposed to put in an entry as to the payment of the bill to R. Ellis and Co., which was objected to by Mr. M'lutyre as being contrary to the 64th Section of the company's act, which provides that the minutes only should be produced. In this objection the court fully agreed. Thomas Jones deposed to having repaired the wall in question, during the 18 years he was in the employ of the railway company. Mr. A. Marshall, manager of the Nantlle Rilw(LY Company, had often given orders to repair the wall opposite Brynhelen. Did not repair, or see occasion for repairing the wall opposite Mrs. Jones's property. There is no wall between the wall and the machine. Robert RobertsI am surveyor living at Chester. Have been in the habit of making plans for public companies. The plan produced is accurate. Measured the land shewn on the conveyance; and the railway could not get their quantity of land unless the wall was included. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. M'INTYRE, referring to the evidence of Mr. Roberts, the Surveyor, shewed that he had evidently proceeded upon a false assumption. He had stopped short at the machine, and did not go far enough towards Carnarvon. Supposing the defendant got the benefit of the wall in question, his quantity of land would be much less than what was originally conveyd to Mr. Potter. In the deed, he had conveyed to him la. 3r. 34p whilst now only 3r. 34p. could be claimed, being, in fact, lr. 18p. short inclusive of the wall. The point from which his client started from the Pwllheli road had never been shifted, whilst it had been shown the point from which the plaintiff started and claimed the right to this property had been shifted and altered. He could not overlook the fact that the plaintiffs also were short of their quantity of land; but that could reasonably be accounted for by the encroachments of the river upon its banks, the widening of the parish road, by which the railway was likely to push into defendant's land. The I conveyance for Brynhelen property waw made in N ov. 1S3S; the conveyance to the railway company was not executed before December in that year. The house at Brvnhelen was only inhabited in may 1S39, and the wall in question, as he would be able to shew, was not built until some months after Mr. Preece had entered the premises; therefore the bill said to be paid for a wall in March, 1839, could not have been the same wall. The learned gentleman concluded his address by calling Mr. R. Williams, Solicitor, Carnarvon, who said he was defendant's attorney in this action. Had known this spot from his childhood. There is a well near the entrance of the Pwllheli road, and between the well and the machine house there is a wall. There is a wall turning up from the railway towards the machine. Produced the conveyance made to Mr. Preese; the sic of the machine house is included in the plan. Remem- bers the machine-house in a state previous to what it is now. Saw the plan produced by the plaintiffs. In that they have got more than Mr. Poole conveyed, and a portion conveyed [is not there. The part conveyed to the compauy comes to the parish road. By Mr. BEVAN—Brynhelen house was not built when the conveyance was made. Mrs. Preece, widow of Mr.Preece, the purchaser of Brynhelen property, deposed—The house was built at the end of 1828. On the 12th of May, '29,.went to live to the house. My husband built the wall, and a door lead- Jng to the railway, was made about Oct. '29. There was about a yard of space between our wall and the rails laid down. There was a broad gate and a little wicket nearer Carnarvon. Myself and family were in the habit of crossing the railway, and coming by that way to Carnar- von. Have seen the wall repaired by our own servant T» 11 u.ll 1-nO' Vinilf. nhnro flip mnnhiiifi Ulan. ttBuuiiBfu l,Jut:' ,U.L 'J"LUo ""U" V&6 ~— house, and under the well. Recollect the Company pay- ing my husband for the wall constructed down by the Cross-examined by Mr. BEAVAN—Robert Ellis and another built the wall. The railway was opened before we went to Brynhelen. Did not see our servant man repairing the wall. Robert Griffith, a stonemason, in Carnarvon— as one of the builders of Brynhelen. Took the building of the wall and the railway. He paid me £10 for building a wall from the machine to the water. Took the contract of the wall after the building of the house. There was a wall there before, and we built on the old foundation. It only went over a part of the land. Humphrey Jones-Was employed in building the Owen Roberts-Waa for some years in tne service 01 Ml Preece, who built the wall in question, and superin- tended the repairing of it. Cut the thorns himself. The double line was extended more to Brynhelen. William Pieree-Was employed by Messrs. Williams, Bank to make the gate that led to the railway. Raised the ?between the door and KantUe for the railway company in May, 1856. ?'?.??TSsu?ned up the evidence, after which His LOKDSHIP addressed the jury, Md deaci?bed th? as one of the most frivilous cases ever brought into » ?,rt of justice. The only enjoyment which any of the ,,?i? 'o?d have by the Ight which they cImeù by this property, was the keeping of the wall in repairs, which was not likely to be of such benefit to either of them. The first matter to which he called their atten- tion to W the two wtiug iustrnmeuts by means of which each claimed their title to the property* Defend- ant says- I have not got enough of land unless I get this wall" The answer made to this by the plaintiff was, If yotii get this wall, you will be as far from get- ting the quantity originally conveycd as beforo." The defendant in reality had only one-fourth of what he claims; and though they might give this wall, he would be very little better for it. Thc inaccnracy was not tllc less apparent in the plaintiff's title. The plaintiffs also say, (i We have not had enough." The measurement which the plaintiffs' surveyor had made, was no doubt wrongly based. It appears that he had only measured from the extremity of Brynhelen instead of into the property of Mr. 0. Jones. The bill produced was an important document in favour of the plaintiffs; but not the less important was the evidence of Mrs. Preece, who swears to the wall having been built by her husband some months after the date of the payment of that bill; and the evidence of one of the builders, who deposed to hav- ing received only £10 for the wall he and his partners built for Mr. Preece. Having dwelt at some length upon the evidence of each witness, and pointed out the probabilities and improbabilities of the case, he left it in the hands of the jury to say which of the witnesses, and how much of the evideuce adduced, they believed. The jury retired, and in about half-an-holtv returned into Court with a verdict in favour of the phintiffe-one farthing damages. This concluded the business of the assize, and the Court rose at half-past 2 o'clock.