Wrexham and Denbighshire Advertiser and Cheshire Shropshire and North Wales Register

[REUTER'S TELEGRAMS.1 OFFICIAL FRENCH ACCOUNT. METZ, Thursday Night. No engagement reported to-day. Au Imperial decree orders the organisation of ont regiment of cavalry, and another of foot gensdarmes. I PARIS, Thnrsday Evening. Connt de Palikao said to-day in too Corps Legis- lative, that the late reverses would be repaired and that revenge was both near and certain. War credit has been increased from 500,000,000 francs to a milliard, and the Bank of France has received sanction to give forced currency to notes.

FRENCH BRAVERY AT WOERTH. PARIS, August 11. The correspondence from Metz agrees in repre- senting the army of the Rhine as now forming two corps-one being concentrated near Metz, and the smaller one under Alacmahon. Marshal Bazaine has the general control of operations, although it appears the Emperor still retains the command in chief. Great heroism was displayed by the corps of Macmahon in the disastrous battle of Woerth. The French charged the Prussian line eleven times, each time breaking it, but always finding a mass of fresh troops behind. Nearly all Macmahon's staff was killed, and the Marshal him- self, after having been fifteen hoars in the saddle, was at length unhorsed, and fell fainting into a ditch, where he was discovered by a soldier, who revived him with some brandy from his gourd. The Marshal then directed the retreat of the debris of his corps on foot. The French suffered very much from the superiority of the Prussian infantry in the steadiness and accuracy of their fire. The Garde Mobile are signing a petition to be commanded by General Changarnier. The bat- talions of the Garde Mobile now at Chalons will be sent to the frontier. The Paris battalions will be employed in defending the forts ronnd the -capital. The Mediterranean squadron left Brest on Sunday for an unknown destination. Three journalists are supposed to have been killed in the recent engagement. It is said that Edmond About was seen on Monday evening, making his way to Saverne on foot.

PRUSSIAN CAVALRY IN PURSUIT OF THE FRENCH. CAPTURE OF FRENCH STORES. EVACUATION OF A FRENCH FORT. METZ, August 9 (3.50 p.m.) The Prussians have left B )uz,)nville and Sierck and are encamping near. Bazaine is Commander in Chief. Changarnier is with the Emperoi, BERLIN, August 11. Official military advices, dated Saarbruck, Wed- nesday, 10 p.m., and received this morning at one, run as follows:—The French army continues to re- treat towards the Moselle at all points. The entire Prussian cavalry is following closely. Large stores of provisions, two trains of pontoons, and several railway trains have fallen into our hands. The line of SAar-Union, Gros-Tenquin, Faulquement, and Les Etangs has already been crossed by the cavalry. The small fortress of La Petite Pierre, in the Vosges, has been evacuated by the enemy, who left behind them cannons and military stores.

STRASBOURG SURROUNDED.—A SIEGE I IMMINENT. CAHLSBUCHE, August 11. According to the official intelligence received here, Strasbourg is at this moment surrounded on all sides, and the railways leading thence to Hage- nan, Paris, and Lyons are occupied by the German troops. It is stated that the fortress is only gar- risoned by one regiment of Iufantry and the Na- tional Guard; and that it is very scantily pro- visioned. The Commander yesterday refused the summons of General Beyer to surrender.

-00 J [PBESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAMS. ] I LIVERPOOL CORN MARKET. I Hardly any business has been done in wheat, and prices have been irregular at a decline of about 31 per cental from Tuesday's rates. Flour proportionately cheaper and market quiet. Ponq 6d, and beans Is per qr. lower. Oats and oatmeal unaltered. Barley unchanged. Indian corn par- ticipated in prevailing dulluess, and holders would willingly accept a reduction of Is per qr.

LONDON CORN MARKET. I Markets dull with sales rather pressed, owing to heavy arrivals, and to the general opinion that the war is nearly over. English wheat has also been effected by the brilliant harvest weather, and may be quoted 2s to 3& lower. Foreign also suffered a similar decline. Town flour unchanged. Country markets 3" per sack cheaper. American Is to 2s lower. Barley heavy dt a decline of Is. Oats with the latest arrivals on record are Is to 2s lower. Maize Is less money. Beans dull. Peas 23 cheaper.

(The following appeared in our Second Edition of Saturday last.) HOUSE OF LORDS.—FRIDAY. I Their Lordships met at five o'clock. The Earl of Harrowby called attention to a change introduced by the Charity Commissioners in the administra- tion of endowments for the relief of the poor, and moved that it was not expedient that the principle laid down by the courts should be overruled. The Lord Chancellor deprecated the motion as inoppor- tune. and stated that there had been only one com- plaint at the way in which the commissioner, dis- charged their duty. The motion was withdrawn.— A long list of orders was then run Limmgh, and the House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY. I The Speaker took the chair at two o'clock. In reply to Sir G. Jenkinson and Sir J. Gray, Mr Gladstone said the treaty adon and ctUva was one by which the relations of the contracting Powers to Belgium were regulated. He could not 1 state now what course it would be advisable to take in the event of either of the present belligerent powers at- tempting to interfere with the independence of Belgium. The whole position of the question had been fully considered by the Government, and steps had been adopted which were thought best calcula- ted to establish confidence and security. The Government were anxious to communicate informa- tion of the subject to Parliament at the earliest moment, and he entertained hopes that they would be able to do so before the session closed. In reply to Sir H. Verney, Mr Gladstone said the Govern- ment had no intention 6f interfering with the ex portation of horses abroad.—The Consolidated Fund Appropriation Bill passed through committee.— Atter a short discussion on the condition of the navy, which Mr Childers described a-i thoroughly efficient and equ J to any emergency, the Stamp Duties Management Bill, the Inland Revenue Acta Repeal Bill, and the Foreign Enlistment Bill were read a third time and passe^-1. The Ecclesiastical Title4 Act Repeal Bill pssed through committee.- On the order of the day ?' ?in? into committee on the East India revenue amounts, Mr Fawcett. ™ w 1 the late period at which the Indian Budget is introduced  asking for a committee next session to inquire ino?a? ministrations of the fi|ancTs of India The ?u- tion was ultimately withdrawn, and Mr Grant Duff made a long nnancia!st?mentasto revenues of India which was identical with the statements already made by the Duke of Argyle in the House of Lords. Before the hon. gentleman concluded his statement, progress was reported, and the sittin°" was suspended at seven o'clock. The sitting was resumed at nine o'clock. Mr Grant Duff proceeded w.th his statement of the affairs of India. He expressed a satiguine hope that the vigorous steps taken by the Viceroy and Council, to whose exertions he paid a high testi- mony, would obviate all fear of a deficit, but would not absolutely assert that this would be the case. It was intended to spend three millions on works extraordinary, of which two millions would be bor- rowed in England if circumstances were favourable, and one million taken from the cash balances in India, which were upwards of thirteen millions. In conclusion, he stated that the Government was ully impressed with the necessity of maintaining a financial equilibrium and the exercise of the most ^vere economy.-After s°me discussion, in which Mr Eastwick, Blr H, Burke, Mr S. Denison Mr J. B. Smith, Sir n L. Wingfield, Ir Bazlev Sir W. oth? took ?. ?orn?i??re?'??'. ? 'W. ootthheerrss too1 k part, a formal resolution was a°<*re"d to, and a number of bills having advanced a stage, the F Quae adjourned a.t 1.50.

HAWARDEN. I LOYAL ORDER OF ANCIENT SHEPHERDS, BROUGH- TON. The second annual festival (under the patronage of W. Johnson, Esq., Chester, Rev. J. Evans, of Broughton vicarage, J. Sheen, Esq., R. Griffiths, Esq., S. Smith, Esq., J. Bamber, Esq., and D. Sheen, Esq.), took place on Monday last, when the members of the Busy Bee Lodge cele- brated their anniversary. The members, numbering about 60, and wearing the regalia of the order, joined in procession at ten o'clock, and headed by the brass band of the 1st Flintshire Engineers, they proceeded to church, where a very suitable sermon was preached by the Rev. J. Evans, the newly appointed vicar. From church, they walked to Mr J. Sheen's, where each member was supplied with refreshments; thence to the Glynne Arms Inn, where they broke up for half an hour, after which they re-assembled, and proceeded to Brough- ton Hall, the residence of W. Johnson, Esq., where each member was again supplied with refreshment. From there they went to the King's Head Inn for dinner, which was served up in a large new shed, by Mr Prioe, the worthy host. The chair was taken by J. Sheen, Esq., supported by the Rev. J. Evans, W. Johnson, Esq., and P. M. Shaw, the late instructing officer of the lodge. The vice- chair was taken by J. Bamber, Esq., supported by W. Jones, Esq., P. W. Greaves, and Bro. W. Fisher, of Liverpool. The balance sheet showed the lodge to be in a very encouraging position, and Mr Fisher gave some statistics showing the very flourishing and useful position of the order, which our space, unfortunately, will not allow our publishing. RHOSLLANERCHRUGOG. I THE FATAL ACCIDENT AT BRYN-TR-OWEN COLLIERY. -On Saturday last, an adjourned in- quest was held before B. H. Thelwall, Esq., and a jury, of which Mr Robert Roberts was foieman, or the body of Joseph Thomas, a collier, aged 18 years. The deceased was working Ï1 the yard seam, in No. 4 pit, on the 24th of July, and while pushing a certain dram along he fell down to the bottom of the p t.—Mr Oakes, the manager, repre- sented the company, and after a long inquiry the juiy arrived at the following verdict. That the deceased was in the act of pushing a certain dram" along loaded with coal, and while so doing it happened that, in conscqaence of there not being sufficient light at the mouthing" of the shaft, he fell to the bottom of the pit, and was killed."—Mr Oakes thought the verdict was not justified by the facts. There were always plenty of lights to be had.—Subsequently the jury wished to modify their verdict to the effect that the man died by an acci- dent, and that in their opinion, there should be more light in the mouthing; but the coroner re- fused to alter the first conclusion they had recorded. RUTHIN. I PICKPOCKETS.—Two or three women were on Monday, in the bntter market, eased of their parses, containing small sums of money. A strange man and woman loitering about the market at the time were taken up by the police on suspicion of being the perpetrators of the robberies, but the sums of money found on them did not correspond with the amounts alleged to have been stolen. The woman was said to have been before the magistrates at Wrexham, on a similar charge, but as she was not then convicted, the police could nor, sustain the charge of rogue and vagabond, and the Mayor, therefore, when they were brought before him on Taesday morning, dismissed both. I BOARD OF GUARDIANS, MONDAY.—Present: James Maurice, Esq., chairman Rev. D. Roberts and John Jenkins, Esq., vice-chairmen R. G. Johnson, ex-officio; Rev. J. C. Davies, Derwen; R. G. Ellis, Esq., Llanrhydd; Messrs Edward Humphreys, Gyffylliog Thos. Symond and W. Eyton Lloyd, Llanfair; Rev. J. Griffith and Mr Evan Davies, Llanynys Messrs John Jones and C. Goodman Joaes, Rathin. Removal of a Paitper.-In accordance with a communication from the board of guardians of the Bala union, it was resolved to accept a pauper, named Francis Roberts, without an order of re- moval. A Lunatic.-An application was made by Mr Robert Roberts, Fron, Derwen, to place his daugh- ter in the asylum as a pauper, and promising to pay the guardians for her maintenance. The board objected to have her placed there as a pauper, believing that Mr Roberts was in a position to support her in the asylum, II she went there at all, as a private inmate. New Guardians.-The Clerk reported that the Rev. Thomas Williams was returned a guardian for Nantglyn, and Mr Charles Goodman Jones for Ruthin, both without opposition. Monetary. Balance in treasurer's hands, 211 10s.; out relief-Griffizhs, ZI06 11s. 6d.; Jones, £6613". 6d. Cheques to be drawn for- Griffiths, £ 105 Jones, L65. PETTY SESSIONS. MONDAY. Before R. G. Johnson, Esq., and R. F. Birch, Esq. In Carts without Reins. Constable James Lloyd charged Robert Davies with this offence, but he was dismissed.—P.C. James Harnamaa charged one Edward Roberts with a similar « ffence, and defendant was fined 2s. and costs and on the information of P.C. George Hughes, for riding in his cart without reins, was fined for this offence 3s. and costs. Drunk and Disorderly.-P.C. William Roberts preferred a charge of drunkenness against Robert Edwarls, who was fined 2s. 6d. costs. Non-Maintenance of IVife. -ILiformation had been laid by Mr B. Davis, clerk to the Rathin union, against Thomas Williams, for the non- maintenance of his wife, but the summons had not been served, and the case was therefore adjourned till next meeting.

NOfES FROM RUTHIN. We have recently been favoured with the ap- pointment of two important public functionaries one of the appointments has given general satis- faction, the other common discontent. I allude, firstly, to the electiou of the new INSPECTOR OF NUISANCES And I think the local board have acted wisely in their selection of police constable Rowlands as their inspector of nuisances, who, no doubt will be vigilant in searching out and ordering the removal of dung heaps, and the cleansing of privies ia the back yards of small houses in narrow streets and courts and probably he will look to the slaughter- houses and their surroundings, many of which require looking after. But with all his efforts, it is certain the desired end of a thoroughly clean and healthy town will not be attained without the assistance of landlords, for it is a notorious fact that there are properties—even in our market- place-occupied by respectable trades-people, with miserably small yards (a few feet between three or four houses), that with all the efforts in keeping them clean, it is utterly impossible they can be healthy. I don't know the extent of the local board or the inspector's powers, but I fear, if they should have the power, they will not exercise it so far as to compel landlords to provide better accom- modation for their tenants. It would therefore be well if the landlords themselves would volunteer to come forward and do what they ought without resorting to compulsion. It is gratifying, by the way, to observe how Mr Beaiey, in all the new Duildings he is putting up, regards the heaith and comfort of his coming tenants, by providing good accommodation for them. OUR NTW LETTER CARRIER. I If we have advanced a stage in appointing the above official, we have certainly retrograded many steps in the nomination of a new letter carrier. It was bad enough to receive your letters a li tie after nine o'clock in the morning, but within the last fortnight we have to be satisfied if we receive them at dinner time, or even later than that hour-your newspaper and an occasional letter opened by a neighbour in whose house they ha been left by mistake; and the fault lies at the door of the post-office authorities, who pay their carriers so shabbily that no efficient hand can be obtained to do the work. Previous to the last fourteen days, Ruthin could have boasted of an active. careful, and in every respect as efficient a messenger as any town in the kingdom, and he delivered letters in all the streets between Llanrhydd-street and Llanfwrog church-a distance in a straight iine of one mile, to say nothing of turning to the bye-streets—for the paltry sum of seven shillings per week. His repeated application for an ad vanc. and to be made on a par with other towns of similar size were unheeded, and not only so, but. an inspector came here a fortnight sinee, ami extended the postman's beat to Bronrlaidd, a distance of half a mile further, and all for the verv I handsome wages of seven shillings per week The postmau, as might be expected, gave up his post altogether, rather than submit to the wretchedly unreasonable demand and the inconvenience and annoyance that the public have since been put to in consequence, is very great indeed. But how is this state of things to he remedied ? Could not the Ruthin postmaster represent the affair to the proper authorities, and get matters put straight ? If he cannot, or will not, then let us try the effect of a pitition, signed by every householder in the town, and let us know the reason why we cannot get our newspapers and letters on the breakfast table like other towns. By the way, we have two mails in the day, bat only one delivery, and I think it is high time to stir up in this matter when some of us receive letters that might be lying in the office this evening at eleven and even twelve o'clock to-morrow morning. I believe, Mr Editor, that your kindness in inserting this protest will have the effect of helping on the needed reform. IDWAL. I

———— CHESTER ASSIZES. I MONNDAY.—Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn. I EMMET W. CUTLER. I Messrs. Macintyre and Horatio Lloyd for the plaintiff, and Mr Morgan Lloyd for defendant.— The declaration set forth that money had been received by defendant for plaintiff's use, and had not been paid to her; that defendant who had been employed by plaintiff as auctioneer, had not exercised due and proper skill in disposing of pro- perty entrusted to him by plaintiff; that he had sold furniture, specially agreed to be bought in unless certain prices were bid under those prices, and that defendant had appropriated property to his own use. Defendant pleaded a negative to all the counts but the first, to which he pleaded not indebted less jE54 19s 2d paid into court. It ap- peared from evidence produced on the part of the plaintiff that the plaintiff, Mary Jane Emmet, was widow of an officer in the army, and resided at Rhyl. Last year she was indebted to her land- lord in a sum of money, and gave him, or his agent, Mr Debney, a bill of sale, due on the 27th of April this year, on her furniture, for f.50, pay- ing him his rent due, and that accruing out of the amount. Mr Yate Lee, a gentleman from Lan- cashire, had employed defendant to sell a house at Rhyl, but the house could neither be sold nor let, and Lee decided to furnish it and let it out in apartments. Defendant was introduced to plaintiff about the 12th of April, and represented to her that if she would sell her furniture he would use his influence to get Mr Lee to take her as house- keeper of the house in question. She was rather averse to sell the goods in the first instance, but afterwards censented to it, on agreement that de- fendant should pay off the bill of sale. The sale took place on the 27th and 28th of April. Very few persons were present. The articles were put up and sold at a sacrifice. She represented to de- fendant that the geods were selling for nothing, and plaintiff then sold them with a greater vengeance," not giving her time to make a bid before the hammer was "gone." The account furnished to plaintiff amounted to 2140 5s Id, but afterwards a second account of 2148 8s 8d was rendered.—The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for L20. TUESDAY.—Before Mr Justice Hannen. ACTION FOR SLANDER.—DAVIES AND ANOTHER V. I DAVIES AND ANOTHER. Mr Swetenham, instructed by Mr Rymer, ap- peared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Bowen, instructed by Mr Jones, Wrexham, for the defendants. The plaintiffs and defendants came from Coed- poeth, and it is alleged that the defendant's wife, Sarah Davies, published this slander of Elizabeth Davies, the wife of the plaintiff She is a thief; she stole d62 from my husband she stole Y.2 from us." Evan Davies, one of the defendants, and Thomas Davies, one of the plaintiffs, stand in re- Jation of father and son. Evan Davies and his wife had occasion to go to Liverpool to consult a doctor. They keep a beerhouse, and they re- quested Thomas Davies and Elizabeth Davies to come and take care of the house while they were away. On returning from Liverpool defendant's wife alleged that she missed some money from the room where the plaintiffs slept, and she uttered the above words in the presence of several people. An apology had been offered, and the action was really now for costs. His Lordship said the question was whether the plaintiff should make his own father pay for some- thing his mother was to blame for. He suggested that the case should go no farther. Mr Swetenham said, in the absence of Mr Rymer, he could not agree to that, but ultimately a juror was withdrawn, PEARCE V. POTTS. Mr H. Lloyd and Mr Hughes appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Giffard, Q C., and Mr Macintyre for the defendant. Plaintiff in this case was a man named Pearce, who for the best part of his life had been in the position of gamekeeper, and latterly head game- koepor, and the defendant, Mr Potts, was a gentle- man of position, living in the county of Denbigh, having an estate not far from the town of Mold. Plaintiff stated that in 1862 he was living in Shropshire, and had saved a good sum of money. in that year he advertised for other employment than he was then in, and Mr Potts having answered his advertisement, arrangements were made for him to become Mr Potts's keeper. The terms were that he should have JE50 a year as salary, a cottage to live in, ani a garden. Mr Potts took upon himself the whole expense of rearing, watching, and other expenses incidental to the game. He entered upon the employment, and at that time there was scarcely any game upon the estate. In March, 1864, Mr Potts made another arrangement with him, and upon which this action was founded. At that time Mr Potts came to the cottage where he lived, and said that maintaining game in the previous year cost him more than JB150. The result of the conversa- tion was that from that time in 1864 plaintiff was to take upon himself the rearing of pheasants and game upon the estate, and was to receive 2s per head for the game so reared. That arrangement having been entered into, plaintiff began to serve Mr Potts upon that new footing. His wages were to go on at the old rate of 950, he taking upon himself the cost and all extra trouble. He now claimed JE540 for expenses spread over a period of six years. When plaintiff went to the cottage he possessed f,500, and he expended that sum from time to time. The plaintiff often went to Ruthin to prose- cute poachers, and the bill of particulars contained items of 4s, 7s, 9s, and so on for expenses, but the substantial part of the claim was for barley and wheat grown for the purpose of the pheasants. He understood that Mr Potts was to pay him for the produce of the eight-acre field in consideration of his cultivating it—Mr Potts to pay for the crops as they were wanted for the birds. He had to buy a pony for 26 to go about on looking after the »ame. He ploughed and sowed the eight-acre field and all the grain from it was consumed by the birds. When young the birds required milk, and witness bought a cow. He used the milk from the cow for the rearing of the birds. After looking after the birds in this way they became very numerous. About a thousand pheasants and partridges were reared in 1864. He entered 730 in the book, but Mr Potts's eldest son told him that he would have a thousand. In 1865, 640 pheasants and partridges were reared in 1866, 570; in 1867, 600; in 1868, 200; in 1869,200. In the back end of 1864 he had some talk with Mr Potts as to what he would give him for the crop. Mr Potts said he would consider about it. At thit time he told Mr Potts he did not want the money but wanted to know what he would give for the crops. He did not want the money, for he bad rather it should be in Mr Potts's hands than in the bank. In 1866 Mr Potts accused him of selliug the game. Witness asked Mr Potts to prove it. He .aid to Mr Potts, bring these perjury men en." Mr Potts asked how he could stop them, and wit- ness told him to take a running kick at them. Shooting parties used to come to Mr Potts's, and as many as a many as a hundred a day was killed. It was sent to Chester. One day fifteen hundred- weight was sent to Chester. In 1866 Mr Potts told witt'ess that he had got a man who would rear game for Is a head. Witness told Mr Potts that the man who premised to do that could not rear pheasants at all. The man could not, aud Mr PoLts gave the man the sack." Witness left Mr Potts in February, 1870. In 1869 Mr Potts said to him, "I have paid f,6 for you in Ruthin to- day." Witness said, Why did you settle that case in my absence ?" Shortly after Mr Potts said, Here's another 96 for you to pay." Wit- ness then said that he would never have another shilling from Mr Potts till he had had a settle- ment. In January, 1870, witness was told by Mr Potts that he would have to leave. He asked the bailiff to ask Mr Potts to send somebody down to vulue the crops. Before he left he saw Mr Potts, who asked him when he could leave the cottage. He left about the 3rd or 5th of February, 1870. Bight pounds nine shillings an acre allowed for the barley and wheat was too small. Mr Potts used to pay his salary often before it was due. There was about a half year's salary due.—In cross-ex- jmination by Mr Giffard the plaintiff admitted hat he had made a claim against a Mr Preston, senr., and another against Mr Preston, jucr., for rearing game at 2s a head. Sarah Pearce, wife of the plaintiff, was. called, and said that no description of food was. paid for by Mr Potts for the rearing of game after 1864. Thomas Edwards, head gamekeeper to John W. Eyton, Esq., of Leewood., near Mold, was called to give evidence as to tb e usual price per head for rearing game, but M.r Giffard said that this was either a special ffeontract or it was not. The price for aught that yi as yet known might be most reasonable. After this intimation no other witnesses were called for the plaintiff, and the case closed. Defendant had paid JE50 into court, and Mr Potts was called to show that the bargain was of a simple character, and that in the first instance he (defendant) was to provide all that was necessary for rearing birds, and subsequently not one field, but three fields, were allowed to plaintiff to rear the birds, and he could make any further profit out of it he might do so, but no other contract was entered into. Plaintiff never asked for a settle- ment. Had paid plaintiff various sums, the receipts of which he produced.—Cross-examined: It did not cost witness anything like E150 for the rearing of game during a season. No agreement was come to about rearing at two shilling per head. Jonathan Jerricutt deposed that the plaintiff in 1864 told him he had to rear birds and find them soft food till they could eat the hard. John Cowdall, Mr Potts's butler, deposed to the plaintiff once coming into the house and asking for the sqaire. He was told that he had gone to the rent dinner, and the witness asked him why he had not gone. Plaintiff replied that he had rent free and had to feed the birds with soft food. Benjamin John Bromley, gamekeeper, deposed that he remembered having a conversation with the plaintiff in Jaly, 1868, as to what he got from Mr Potts for rearing the birds, and plaintiff said that he had three fields for finding food for rear- ing the birds. Mr. Stile, tutor in Mr Potts's family, having also given evidence, Mr Giffard summed up, after which Mr Lloyd replied on the whole case. His Lordship then summed up, and the jury found a verdict for the defendant. WEDNESDAY.—Before the Lord Chief Justice I Cockburn. GIFFARD AND OTHERS V. WILLIAMS AND OTHERS. I CSnecial Jarv.1 I Messrs. Macintyre and Coxon for plaintiffs, and Messrs. Giffard, Q.C., and Morgan Lloyd for de- fendants. This was an action of disputed owner- ship of a moiety of a field called Weirglodd Faelog, near Plas Ucha, township of Nerquis, Flintshire. Plaintiffs, W. P. Giffard, W. T. C. Gillard, Thomas Wylie, and James Holyoake, as trustees under a will, claimed the land as a por- tion of the Plas Ucha estate. The defendants, who hold the land, deny plaintiffs' title. Much litigation had taken place respecting the land in question, which, although of small extent, is sap- posed to be rich in mineral wealth; and the case had been ordered by one of the Masters in Chancery to be tried here before a jury.—A ver- dict was given for plaintiffs, with leave to move the court above.

ACTION FOR LIBEL AGAINST THE PRO- PRIETOR OF THE" BANER AC AM- SERAU CYMRU." This was an action for libel, the defendant plea- ding-first, not guilty; secondly, a denial of any innendo in the alleged libel; and thirdly, that the statements in the alleged libel were true. Mr. Giffard, Q.C., Mr. M'lutyre, and Mr. Swetenham, were for the plaintiff; and Mr. Morgan Lloyd and Mr. Horatio Lloyd for the defendant. The plaintiff is an architect and agent at Llan- gollen, and the defendant is the proprietor of the Baner ac Amserau Cymru published at Denbigh, and, as Mr. Giffard stated in opening the case, the libel was published in Welsh, but there was a trans- lation which he had belter, peahaps, read to them. The circumstances out of which this arose had reference to an election, in 1868, for the county of Denbigh. The candidates were Mr. George Os- borne Morgan, a member of the Chancery bar, Sir Watkin Wynn, and Colonol Biddnlph. The plain- tiff was in this position—he was the agent of a landlord, who he (the learned counsel) believed was en the Liberal side, while he, the agent, was on the Conservative side. The letter alleged to be libellous, and which appeared in the Baner was as follows:— January 22nd, 1870. Gentlemen,—I happened to hear lately of the following case of turning out, because of voting at the last election in Denbighshire for Mr G. O. Morgan, and went to see the family in order to get the details from themselves. I send them to you for you to make the proper use of them, and I firmly believe they are all true. Several of the neigh- bours certify this. I think" Gohebydd" knows something of this case. I am, &c., ONE WHO KNOWS THEM. Gohebydd was a gentleman who contributed ander that signature to the Welsh press, and the Learned counsel thought that his last public appear- ance was in reference to the Welsh fasting girl. Then came the following :— Tynddol, parish of Llangollen and Cilyn Traian. Tenant, Mr Evan Parry. Landlord, Mr Lewis, Bryn- dethol, Llangollen Vale, a gentleman deaf and dumb, accustomed to be on most friendly terms with Mr Parry; has occasionally been staying for some days at Tynddol; has shown much kindness from time to time to the family. Agent, Mr. Williams, architect, Llangollen, son of the late All Ithel-a zealous Tory. Mr Lewis voted for Colonel Biddulph and Sir Watkin. Mr Parry and his wife are both over sixty years of age. Have lived at the farm for seventeen years, and accustomed to pay their rent to the day. Two sons and one daughter at home; the other children have married and left them. Those that are at home have given all their labour for nothing on the farm; think a great deal of it, and grieving because the are l'-U-vin*^ it. Tormenting themselves much more than us. We shall have a bit as long as we last. The daughter, nineteen years old, has gone on a visit to England to pass rhe time; quite unable to remain there nearly breaking her heart. Substantial improvements have been made on the farm it is worth £10 a year more than it was seventeen years ago. An agreement between them and the landlord no breach of it in anything in the world. The crop is not to go off the farm. Mr Parrv fears he will be obliged to destroy much of it. Has paid E 11 for lime this year (1869), recently put on the land. No hope of getting anything from it nor for it; j65 for guano. Has had much inconvenience and labour in consequence of fell- ing timber on the farm at periods extending over two years. Strange teams breaking the fences and damaging the crops; the trespass not less than £'JO, Have been asking the agent in consequence for some compensation. A refusal and a direction to him to go to the person who had bought the timber. Much wheat straw in stock; fear that there are no means of making anything of it, because the agree- ment prohibits the removal of any crop. Mr Parry fears that there will be nothing to do but to scatter it about the yard. The agent had been frequently asking Mr Parry for his vote before the election wished him to vote for Colonel Biddulph and Sir Warkin, saying that Morgan was worth nothing, Mr P,tri y answering that he could not do that; that his vote would be wholly worthless if he gave one vote to each side. The agent coming there on his horse, a little before the election, and pressing on Mr Parry for his vote, refused, the agent leaving in an angry mood. The last thing he said to Mr Parry was, You will be sorry for it." A cast was made for Sir Watkin's supporters in that neigh- bourhood shortly before the election. Mr Parry did not go there, and he was not invited. The agent's excuse for turning Mr Parry from the farm is that he and his boys are in the habit of fishing in the river Ceiriog. This was the first time he ever spoke of this. Mr Parry paying Z5 a year to his landlord for the game thought the fishing was included. He was in the habit of going with Mr Lewis to fish when he happened to be staying at the Tynddol. He does not remember their ever going with a rod a piece; has shown him the separate pools, where he generally caught. Is sure Mr Lewis knew he was in the habit of fishing, and was quite sure the agent said "he would be sorry for it." Mr Lewis was in the habit of giving Mr Parry flies, hooks, and other tackle. He never said a word about Mr Parry fishing. The river Ceiriog is preserved. Mr Parry supposed he could fish upon his own land for all that, as he pdd for the game. Thinks that Mr Lewis's land does not belong to the preserve. The preserve is only a recent thing. When the preserve was formed, Mr Lewis sent an appr priate letter to Mr Parry, requesting him not to interfere with the watchers, but to let them go over the land if they wished. Mr Lewis was a great friend to Colonel Biddulph. Mrs Parry was in the habit of making much of the agent. Each time he went there, as much as she could, she -iicl her best for him every time. The notice to quit was received late by post on the 28th of November the family all in their beds; judged that the notice was iot regular. Cannot get a place, and Mrs Parry judges that everybody is opposed to them after they have gone like this and judges that had their late master been alive they would not have been left like this to take their chance; having passed the 60th year of their age. The neighbours are certain that they are the people most respected and intelligent in the district. Mr Parry was noted as a good farmer, every place about the house appearing in good order. Mr Giffard said that was the nature of the libel, and he supposed whatever feeling there might be either political or otherwise in that court, nobody would doubt it was a serious libel. Apart from its being an actual infraction of the law, as it had been made by Act of Parliament, to intimidate or coerce a voter, he supposed nobody would doubt that for a man to use his influence with his landlord or employer in order to get a man turned out of his farm for voting conscientiously^ was condoct that nobody would, defend, and to impute it im properly to a person who was not guilty of it was unquestionably a libel. The learned counsel went oil to say that it was shrinking frora a manly course of conduct in the case for the defendant to sty b\ his pleas he did not meau to impute anything wrong, and at the same time saying the statement- %vere true. He-bad not retracted and apologised hi a straightforward manner, and that mixture of excuse and deaial never could be justifiable. Tin- statements complained of included the words thai Mr Lewis, the landlord, knew the tenant Mr Parrv was in the habit of fishing. that was about tin only pal tide of truth in the whole article, and tha was the reason, together with his not having pai i his rent up to the very day stated in article, that the landlord was dissatisfied with him, and he had notice to leave. The defendant had his attention called to the letter which appeared in his paper on the 16th of February, by a lette from the complain- ant, who requested the name of the author to h. given up or he would hold the defendant responsi ble. In reply to that t'je defendant said that ii contradiction was inserted, as no doubt he (th plaintiff) would observe, by another correspondent. The letter, which the learned counsel read denied j that the statements of the article signed one wh" knows tllem" were true, aud said that Mr Lewis, who waa in London till a short time previous to the election, had desired him (the writer) to tell the other tenants that they were free to vote according to the dictates of theu: conscience. The learned counsel said the effect of this letter was to relieve the landlord, Mr Lewis, but not his agent from the serious imputations that had bean made against him, and it was therefore no apology or contradic- tion. After that the correspondence amounted to nothing, and the question for him to try was whether the defendant could partially justify what he said, or show that the language he used was used in a sense different from that in which the plaintiff understood it. The Judge said the spirit of the letter was such as to lead him to think the case might now be arranged by consent. The plaintiff, Mr John Williams, architect and land agent, Llangollen, was then examined as follows Mr Swetenham: Did you ever ask Evan Parry for his vote for one of the candidates at the last Denbighshire election ? Witness No. Do you remember shortly before the day of election meeting Parry near Tynddol? I did, about half a mile from there. Now, did any conversation then take place between you and him with regard to the election? Yes. What took place between you and Evan Parry with reference to the election ? Witness After a little conversation about something or otber-I forget now what-I asked him how he was going to vote. What did he say to that ? He said, I suppose I can vote as I like." What did yon say to that ? I said. "Certainly." and further said to him I only wished to know how you were going to vote." Now, was that all the conversation that took place at that time about the voting ? Witness: Certainly. The Judge: Did he tell you how he was going to vote ? No, my lord, he did not. Mr Swetenham: Now, did you afterwards, before the election er at any other time, have any conversation wiih him about voting ? No. Never Well, did you ever use these words to Evan Parry, or any words to this effect, You will be sorry for it ?" Certainly not. Prior to th3 pre- sent landlord coming into possession I was not agent to the estate but after the present proprietor came into possession, I received the notice pro- duced from Evan Parry. who said he did not care about the farm Tynddol, for he had got a farm of his own; and that unless I lowered the rent he would leave Tynddol. I did not lower the rent, and the circumstances under which he remained were, that he begged to remain, and I allowed him. There was agreement about the taking. In that (produced) the tenant was to have game, but the fishing was reserved by the landlord. The river Ceiriog runs through the estate, and he (plaintiff) told Evan Parry that't was to be strictly preserved and he was to allow the watchers every opportunity for going along the land. Afterwards plaintiff had to find fault with him on account of fishing and obstructing the watchers, and, at the order of Mr Lewis, gave him notice to quit. The first time he was in arrears with his rent was on July 4th, 1867, when he left £32 10s; on January 24th, 1868, he was 227 10s short; on the 3rd July he left £ 32 10s in January next he left all unpaid; and in the following July he was E145 in arrears, which be cleared up, and was allowed f,12 2a 2d for time. There was a mountain on his farm and he was to cultivate that, but allowed it to get worse than it was before. Prior to the notice to quit, plaintiff sold some timber on the farm, in the spring uf 1867, and an arrangement was made that the pur- chaser was to pay for all damage done by felling. Cross-examined There was no rent owing when Parry had notice to quit. No allowance of time was promised to "him when he deeided on the farm, but he was promised an allowance in June, 1868. Plaintiff then corrected himself, and said he did not promise. Remembered Parry com- plaining of tne timber which had been felled and injured his crops, but did not promise anything for that. Tried to let the farm before Parry decided to remain, but did not ask him to remain. Complained to him about fifteen months ago, after the election, of his not allowing the watchers fair play. Did not know whether Parry put any guano on the land. Originally he might. Cultivated the mountain land, and plaintiff asked him to bring it back to the same state of cultivation. He promised to do so in 1867, but did not. Plaintiff did not canvass any of Mr Lewis's tenants, or ask Parry for his vote. Would not swear that he did not go near Parry's house during the election, but certainly not to ask him for his vote. He (plain- tiff) was a paid agent of Sir Watkin Wynn before the election, but never asked Parry or any one of Mr Lewis's tenants for a vote for Sir Watkin during the election, The district he (plaintiff) was to canvass was Glynceiriog and Llansaintffraid, which embraced Parry's farm. Never asked Parry to vote for Sir Watkin and the Colonel, or say that his landlord was going to do so and wished him to do the same. Parry did not say he would not promise, but would consider. Plaintiff would swear he was not there twice on horseback, leaving other gentlemen in the road while he went into the house of Parry, and denied that he urged Parry to vote a second time, and told him that Osborne Morgan had no interest in the county. Parry did not reply that he had promised his vote, or say that if he voted for Colonel Biddulph and Sir Watkin his vote would go for nothing. His Lordship Which way did he vote ? Plaintiff: He voted for Biddulph and Morgan. In reply to another question from Mr M. Lloyd, the plaintiff said he did not call a third time and ask Parry which way he was going to vote, and say if he did not vote for Colonel Biddulph and Sir Watkin he would be sorry for it. Did ask Parry which way he was going to vote, so as to know how to fill np the voting paper. Be-examined: He canvassed jointly with Mr Richards, who could have heard what he said to Parry. The notice to quit was given to Parry on September 27til, 1869, and the election took place in November of the previous year. Told Parry if he would make out an account of the damage done by the timber he would attend to it. Edward Wynne Lewis, who is deaf and dumb, and spoke by signs interpreted, said he was the landlord of the farm at Tynddol. Parry had notice to leave because of his impudence to him (witness) and he told his agents to write and give him notice. By being impudent witness meant that when on a visit with his brother-in-law, Parry called with another tenant, William Jones, and wanted him (witness) to reduce his rent, and he refused, on which he (Parry) gave notice to quit. He came to a rent dinner, not having paid his rent—(laughter)—and had not well cultivated his land, as he (witness) knew from seeing it. Witness was in London and took no steps to ascertain how his tenants were going to vote, and a schoolfellow, a nephew of the Right Hon. John Bright, first told him an election was pending. The night before the election he came home. He told Roberts that his tenants could vote generally which ever way they pleased He (the witness) voted for Sir Watkin Wynn and Colonel Biddulph. Cross-examined: His father died August 1st, 1867, and soau after Evan Parry gave notice to quit, but witness reduced his rent JE5 or 910, and allowed him 210 for guano, and he stayed on. Never stayed at his farm or gave him flies to fish with. Edward Roberts, a tenant of the last witness, said he saw him the night before the polling day, and he gave him a message to take to Parry and the other tenants, and he (witness) delivered it. He plumped for Col. Biddulph, and told Mr JLewis the night before that he should do so, and Mr Lewis did not object. He saw the letter in the Baner, and got one written for him in reply, which was published. Before that was sent he had no communication with Mr Williams. David Parry, the present tenant of Tynddol farm, said In March last, when he entered, some parts were in good cultivation and others were neglected. Of the latter there were 23 acres, the whole of the farm being 145 acres. Did not vote at the election. Mr Macintyre: He hadn't a vote perhaps. (Laughter. ) Cross-examined by Mr Morgan Lloyd: Found I lime aud guano laid on the farm. By the Court: That was laid this year. By Mr Morgan Lloyd: There were outgoing crops left by the last tenant. Paid 155 to him for his share. Mr Charles Richards, Llangollen, deposed he was an agent for the Conservatives at the election, and canvassed that district with Mr Williams, the plaintiff. Canvassed Evan Parry once, afterwards saw him in the road with Mr Williams. D.m't remember any conversation that t.lOk place. If such words as You'll be sorry for it," had been used he would have heard it. Cross-examined: Heard nothing about the elect on. Mr Morgan Lloyd, in onening th& defendant's case, atid it was a matter of some importance, aud the only interest which the defendant bad in defeudiug the action and setting up a justification was in order that the truth might be laid before the jury. He was very desirous to make e^ery reparation that the justice of the matter required and enabled him to do. It was utterly impossible for him to withdraw statements which he found to be true but any statements that were found to be untrue he showed every readiness to retract. The defendant, as had already appeared, was a gentle- man who was a stranger to the neighbourhood of Llangollen, he being the proprietor and publisher of a newspaper published at Denbigh. Of course, he was unable to attend to all the editorial duties himself, and entrusted s3me of those duties, as other newspapers proprietors did, to editors whom he employed; and when the alleged libel was printed in his paper it was inserted on the faith of the signature of the correspondent, who was a gentlemen living in the neighbourhood of Llan- gollen, without his (defendant's) having any reason to think that there was any inaccuracy in any part of it. He therefore published that, 83 he was bound to do; because at election times in Wales, as elsewhere, all matters connected with the election on both sides which took place ought to be published, otherwise elections could not get on in this free country. The paper being published weekly, contained the next week a communication from Mr Edw. Roberts, one of Mr Lewis's tenants, correcting what he thought was incorrect in that letter relating to his landlord's action at the elec- tion. The readiness of Mr Gee to publish that communication from Mr Roberts showed he cared only for the truth connected with the matter and he (the learned counsel wished to state that Mr Lewis was fnlly exonerated by that letter from Mr Roberts, which appeared immediately in the news- paper, and Mr Gee thought there was an end of the matter altogether. From that day to the present time he had never repeated any complaint against Mr Lewis, and if that gentleman had been the plaintiff he would have had no difficulty in exonerating Mr Gee personally from the part of the matter complained of. Before he called their attention to the evidence he would lay before them, he begged to direct their notice to the course this matter had taken before the action was brought, and subsequently. On the 24th of February, Mr Williams, the plaintiff, wrote to Mr Gee, stating his attention had been called to the letter published in the Baner on the 16th nit., and remarking that as the statements it contained were entirely untrue, he must request him to give him the author, other- wise he must hold him responsible. Mr Gee immediately wrote an answer to that stating he had informed the author that his letter had been received, and would write to him with respect to his reply. Well, the contradiction of the state- ment by Mr Roberts was inserted, as they knew, and Mr Gee thought that the complaint was with regard to what had been said of Mr Lewis, as land- lord. Then no further communication appeared to have taken place until the 17th of May following, when Mr Gee wro'e to Mr Williams. Previous to that letter a writ had been issued and served upon Mr Gee; but no further attempt had been made either by the plaintiff or his attorney to ascertain why he did not report the result of his communica- tion with the correspondent referred to. No letter was written to ask for an apology, but a writ was issued an d served and then Mr Gee, still un- willing to go into litigation, still unwilling to cause pain or trouble to a gentleman who was a son of a friend of his own, wrote a letter, dated May 17tb, which was as follows :— Dear Sir,—I was greatly surprised to receive from you, through Mr. Pugh, of Wrexham, a writ this morning What it is for I am at a loss to know. I suppose it tir reference to the same question on which I wrote to you February last, as I know of nothing else in which your name has ever been mentioned in connection with my paper; and if I had been aware of the state of matters, such would not have appeared. I can only say with regard to this, that I have no ill-feeling towards you which would induce me to publish anything derogatory to your charac- ter. To show you that my feeling » juld not be otherwise than friendly, I was acquainted with your late father, who was a relative of my mother's. Before his death I had agreed with him to write me a little Welsh grammar, for which I paid him 25 on account. He died before he wrote a single page of the work, and from the respect I had for the feelings of the family, I never asked for a farthing of the money. This is the first time I have ever had anything of the sort to deal with, and I certainly expected it wouid not have come from you without notice. I am ready, as I would be even to an enemy, to retract and make such amends as you may desire, upon proof that the statements are not true, and I await your explanation. No explanation was furnished at all, but on the 31st May the plaintiff wrote, stating Mr Gee had treated his letter with contempt, and therefore he had put it into the hands of his solicitor. He answered that at once, saying he was in communi- cation with his correspondent, and would make inquiries into the matter. That showed Mr Gee had no personal ill-will in the matter at all. He did pat himself into communication with the Rev. Mr Evans, who wrote the letter complained of; and learned from Mr Evaus that as regarded the words made use of, alluding to what had been done by Mr Williams, the plaintiff, to Evan Parry, and the conduct he pursued, he had learned that th3 statement was true, and, therefore, as a gentleman and a man of honour he felt he could not say that the words were untrue. That, too, was the reason why the defendant had put the plea on the record to that effect, while at the same time, so far as he could conscientiously withdraw any observation complained of, he was perfectly prepared to do so. The charge against the plaintiff in the matter, anti which would be proved, was that he canvassed Evan Parry, and having asked for his vote, made use of the words alleged as he was parting with Evan Parry, when he used an expression to the effect-" Well, I won't ask you any more, you will repent of it." Whatever the meaning might be, Mr Gee was answerable for it; but he said they were used, and that was his justification for publishing them. Now, the plaintiff had denied ever having made use of those words at all. He had further denied ever having canvassed Evan Parry, or spoken to him about the election, except on one occasion, and that was on the public roa t, when he was- accompanied by Mr Richards, the witness who had been called to corroborate him, but who did not confirm his statement in any way but Mr Richards said if there had been any rou.;h words made use of he should have heard them. But it was never alleged that at that interview those words were used at all; therefore, that went for nothing. What was contended and would be proved was this-that the plaintiff went to the homestead of Evan Parry and canvassed him there. And what was more likely ? The plaintiff was not only the agent of Mr Lewis, but was the paid political agent of Sir Watkin in the contest. It would have been only fair that the jury should have known this at first, but the other side ha 1 left him to get it out in cross-examination. That was a fact of very great importance in this case when the jury came to consider the question as to. whether Mr Williams or Evan Parry was entitled to relief. He would call Evan Parry and other witnesses, one of whom would corroborate the tenant's version of what took place and it would then be a question for the jury to say whether they believed, on the one band, the denial of Mr Williams, or, on the other, the statement of Mr Parry, with eorroboratiou in contradiction of Mr Williams in a material point by more than one witness. If that was true, then the substance of the libel was proved. Mr Evan Parry deposed he was the farmer who had left Tynddol some time ago. Remembered Mr Williams, the agent, coming to see him some time before the last election. The first time he came about the vate was to the yard adjoining the house. He came on horseback. Nobody came into the yard with bi n. He asked me for my vote. He said, Would I give my vote for Sir Watkin ?'' I said I could not promise it. He begged very hard that I shoald promise it. I said I could not then promise it. Nothing more took place about vctins then. Mr Williams went away and I went back tc- the house. He came on the day after or the follow- ing day agAin on horseback. He asked me then for my vota for Sir Watkin. His exact words were- I might give it to Sir Watkin and Colonel Biddulpb, as he had nothing against Colonel Biddulph. 1 said 1 thought it was worthless to give one for each side. He said I had better do it, and pressed very hard for it. I said I had promised it. Did not say to whom. He replied he should never ask me again. He also said 2 would be sorry for it I would repent of it. Osborne Morgan's name was mentioned. The Judge; Well, what was said about him ? Witness: He said he was an attorney or coun- sellor not worth notice. By Mr Morgan Lloyd: Voted for Mr Osborne Morgan and Colonel Biddulph. When Mr Williams a,ked lIce f, r my vote and I refused he turned to- wards home displeased and muttering, There were people waiting for him on both occasions. I remember meeting him also in the road opposite the field, where he spoke a few words in Welsh. The conversation in the house was in Welsh. Cross-examined by Mr M'Intyre: Never told anyone I had been turned out of my farm for voting for Mr Osborne Morgan. Have sten stran- gers inquiring. Was told that Rev. Mr Evans bad been there. Have read the Baner article in ques- tion. I don't know what I was turned out of the farm for. Re-examined I think I did tell Mr Evans of the conversation between myself and the plaintiff .about the canvasting. A.in Parry I am the daughter of the last wit- ness,. eud was at home when the Denbighshire .election was going on, ireinaaiber the plaintiff call- ing at my lather's house daring the canvassing on horaebwk. When he first came there I was in h k'L_ M wa.s 111 the kiUken. My father went oat into the yard to °'???" I was in the back kitchen I h,ear\ d ?Mr ?Williams say something about vot:n for Sir Watkin. t> g or Cross-examined: I hear d Sir Watkin's name mentioned but no one else's. That was in the election week. Elizabeth Parry, mother of the last witness, stated that she saw the plaintiff come into the yard d t t e yar and enter into conversation with her husband John Parry, a son, spoke to the same effect. John Evans a Presbyteiian minister at Llan- gollen, said: I am the writer of the letter com- plained of in the Baner. After making inquiries of Mr and Mrs Parry, I communicated what I heard to the paper. I was :inclined to do so in consequence of tie rumour that Mr Parry had been turned out on account of his vote. Cross-examined: I am quite sure I got the materials from them. Mr Parry did not tell me directly he had been turned out, but he left that impression upon my mind. Gobehydd's com- mon name is Mr Griffith, of Llangollen. Mr Morgan Lloyd having addressed the jury upon the evidence, Mr Macintyre, in reply, said he was one who would advocate the liberty of the press as much as possible, but at the same time he would say, let editors and newspaper proprietors take care to have facts well investigated before they proceeded to slander their neighbours. The duty of the defendant was this When that letter was sent making a very serious charge against the plain- tiff, the son of a gentleman for whom he professed to entertain the highest respect, it was his duty to investigate the matter before publishing it through- out the length and breadth of the land. That letter was sent by a person not a regular corres- pondent, and yet it was inserted, bringing dis- credit upon Mr Williams, and perchance upon his employer. The letter must not be taken by itself, but with the heading. If the heading of the letter did not impute to Mr Williams that he was guilty of intimidation-if it did not impute to him that he got his employer to turn that man out of his farm for voting for Mr Osborne Morgan the de- fendant ought to have come forward like a man and apologised. He had the opportunity of doing so, but he would not, and shrunk behind the indi- cation of the plaintiff written by one of Mr Lewis's tenants, and said, because this man has written a letter to show the story to be untrue that is enough for me. I won't give an apology." Then they had a very curious thing in regard ia this original letter. The gentleman who wrote the libel gave his name and address and yet, when the plaintiff wrote for an apology, the defendent replied by say- ing "I cannot apologise. A contradiction of the letter was inserted, as no doubt you will have ob- served by another correspondent." On ih,, 17th cf May, when further correspondence took place, Mr Gee, knowing the name of the writer of that letter, said I just name this fact to show you I could not be influenced by a vindictive feeling towards you, and if my correspondent was when he wrote the letter or report, I will endeavour to find out who he is." Was that true, when he actually knew the correspondent who wro e the letter, because he gave his name and address ? This was the whole c ise they had to consider, and he put it to them that those who wielded the pen and bad a paper circulating through a district where there were persons of an excitable disposition, ought to be ex. tremely careful in ascertaining facts before writing libels on their neighbours. When a man had an opportunity of giving up the name of a correspon- dent and giving an apology, and would not do it, the jnry would hardly act too severely if they gave him such a warning as would prevent others from taking the same line of conduct. His Lordship then summed op, and the jury having retired, after an absence of less than five minutes returned with a verdict for the plaintiff, damages JE50. I OSWESTRY. CAMBRIAH RAILWAY.—We are informed there 13 no truth in a report that one of the bridges on the Cambrian Railway, had given way.The bridge in question is an Iron Swing one, made to open to admit vessels to pass through. One of the cog wheels of the machinery employed to open and close the bridge, was broken, but the bridge itself is intact, and in no way inj ared. Mr G. Owen the Company's Engineer, promptly attended to the breakage. THE NEW RESERVOIR.—A spec:al meeting of the Local Board was held on Monday for the pur- pose of receiving tenders for the completion of the new reservoir.—The Town Clerk stated that two tenders had been received.—After some discussion it was resolved that the tender of Mr Thomas Jay- nes, Sarn Bridge, E720. be accepted, and that llr T. E. Minshall, C.E., be requested to superintend the completion of the works. The surveyor was instructed to take immediate proceedings against parties whose rates are in arrear. FORTNIGHTLY FAIR.—The fortnightly fair for the sale of cattle, sheep, and pigs took place on Wednesday, but the supply of stock was not very large. Messrs. Pugh and Jones sold by Auction 25 cattle and calves, 200 sheep, and lambs, and 50 pigs Messrs Bickerton and Hiles sold 45 -citttle, 10 calves, 328 sheep and lambs, and 25 pigs Mr Griffiths sold 9 cattle and calves, 170 sheep, and lambs, and 35 pigs Mr Thomas Whitfield sold 12 cattle, 15 pigs, and 85 sheep and lambs. Oar quotations are for beef 6 £ d. to 7d. per pound., mutton 7d to 8d., and pigs the turn dearer. THE RIFLE VOLUNTEERS.—The Oswestry Rifle Volunteers, under the command of Captain Owen. took part in the Shrewsbury review on Tuesday, Lieutenant George Owen and Quarter-master Lieu- tenant Clarke were also in attendance. There was a muster of seventy six rank and file, including hand, and at the close of the inspection the corp s enjoyed the hospitality of the officers at the Lion Hotel, and returned to Oswestry by the ten o'clock train. At the meeting of the Shropshire Riffle As- sociation, which commences at Shrewsbury to-mor- row, and concludes- on Friday, Oswestry will have numerous representatives. In class Lt, for the bronze medal, Sergt. Windsor, Corporal Maun, Corporal Holland, Privates John Davies and D. Evans, are entered, and for the additional priss presented by Lord Berwick-a portrait of the King of the Belgians-which was shot for Yesterday (Friday) by noncommissioned officers only, Sergt. Windsor and Corporal Mann were the representa- tives of the Oswestry corps.

FLINTSHIRE ASSIZES. On Saturday the Lord Chief Justice conclnfd the business of the assize with the case of INDECENT ASSAULT. Thomas Hall surrendered to his bettl and tjok his trial on a charge of feloniously and violently ravishing Elizabeth Barnett, at Bettisfif Id, on the 24th of April, 1670. Mr Swetenham and Mr Battersby prosecaied, and Mr Macintyre defended the prisoner. The jury found the prisoner not guiity, where- upon his Lordship said Prisoner, you may be dis- charged, at the same time do not let it be supposed but that you misconducted yourself most grutslj with that young woman there is no doubt vol took indeceni libei ties with her, by takiug advan- tage of her unfoi tunate condition. The prisoner was then discharged, and among the tirs-t to bail him wlieujhe got outside the hall was the prosed" trix, who appfared to be as pleased with bis escape as he himself was. They were afterwards together for some tiiue, and a crowd followed and cheered them as though they were the heroes of « thousand battles." THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE ON THE CRIMK OF BIGAMY. John Morris Price was then put forward to reo ceive sentence for having married Catherine Williams, at Flint, in October last, his first wik, Jane Edward", being then alive. His Lordship said: John Morris Price, you have been found guilty of the crime of bigamy, and yours is a very strious case, because you not only desert your rir,;t wife, but you deceive the woman you iiiii-i,ied by leading her to think she was to become your lawful wife. You have grossly and wickedly cie- ceived her, and you have placed her in a dishonour- able and humiliating position entirely to pldse yourself. No doubt the first wife has been Un!klitb- ful towards you, but I cannot help thinkiug that that was brought about by your misconduct 811 desertion, But I must look at this case froIll another point of view, I must look at tbe ilJjury you have done the second wife and, regarding consequences and position of that woma:l, I ,¡rJ you to be kept to hard labour for fifteaa caleudat months. Printed at the Aih\-rtiscr and General Printing EJ' liskmcnt '"Advertiser" Office (late :\11.ic Hall). M.i Square. Wrexham, in the Countv of LJtfibitrli. published on Fridays and Saturdays at the above ct and also at the Establishment of Messrs Prill? an" j HIh Street, Mold, in the County of -ililit; at the 01 t' 'I 'rlv ¡ Mr Erasiwis Edwards, Corwen, n- the ( oUllty" t oth; at Mr C. G. Bayley's The Crw, Oswestry, ? p C >untv of al"I" aud at the E?abl?hmcnt 0Nf r [ t. ut' L 1'. Ev?ns, Lore??te-.trcet, Chester, ill the *•?"' u ,.a "I" U Tt')\a.l' Ch?hirf by S?.tjxA B.,Lyi.Fy 'tret.t ()~- at"C.Silid CUAHI.KS GKOKOK IhYl.n', ???'?,. '.??'-trv aforesaid; and &t:an<.K HRA!.t.nv, 'j.i??'. ?;?' "Wrexham aforesaid.—August Itb, tsru.