The Express.
London, England, 1851-08-11 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—CaorDoN, Auc usT !).
BGENOLI LORD CHIEr JI:NTICA JVRVIA AND A COSIMoN Jt us.
lit *it AND AND ANOTHER r. 1101. T. _

This was an action to recover the amount of a lawyer
bill. The defendant pleaded that he ',lad paid the bill, and
that he won not in debt.

.....
Mr. Chambers said that the plaintiff in this action (Mr.
Husband) sought to recover the amount of his bill for pro-
fessional services rendered to the defendant in 1813. At
that period Mr. Husband was in partnership with a gentle•
man named Wyatt, and although the partnership had
since been dissolved, inasmuch as all the partnership debts
had been made over to the plaintiff, it was necessary on
the present occasion that the action should he brought in
the name of the firm. It appeared that at the period he
had mentioned Mr. Holt was the proprietor of the
.4ys newspaper, and be was indicted for a libel ;
and it was for defending him against this
proceeding that the casts in question were incurred. The
bill was originally of a much larger amount, but upon a
taxation by the officer of the court, owing to the absence of
vouchers which Mr. Husband could not obtain possession
of, the amount was reduced to 321. is. Id., which was the'
amount that was now sought to be recovered.
Mr. G. Benbow, clerk to the plaintiff, proved that hr
was in the service of Messrs. Husband and Wyatt from the
commencement of their partnership in 1814 until it was dis-
solved in 1850. They were counsel for the defendant in the
indictment against him for libel, and he knew that all the
bushiest charges! in the bill hail been p.,rformed.
By Mr...llllllC.4.—Tlie defendant saw Mr. Husband occa-
sionally, but his business was chiefly conducted by Mr.
Wyatt. The endorsement to the cheque for 401. now pro-
duced
was Mr. Husband's handwriting.
Mr. Traill, an attorney, proved that he received a sum of
301. of Mr. Husband on account of Mr. Holt.

This was the plaintiffs case.
Mr. James, fur the defendant, said he felt satisfied that
when the jury had heard this case to a conclusion they
would be of opinion that Mr. Husband had done himself
little credit by bringing it into court. In the first place,
he would beg to call their attention to the fact that the
plaintiff now sought in 1851 to recover a bill for professional
services rendered in 1813. The original amount of this bill
was 1331. 13s. Id., but it had been reduced by taxation to
411., and according to the rule of court regulating such
matters where more than one-sixth was struck off such a
claim the parting claiming had to pay the costs of taxation,
and this reduced the amount to the sum now sought to be
recovered. Mr. Holt declared that the whole of the claim
the plaintiff had upon him had been discharged, and if he
proved this bethought the jury would agree with him that
Mr. Husband had disgraced himself by bringing such a
case into court. The circumstances under which the claim
arose were these —lt would be in the recollection of the
jury that, some years ago, Lord W. Paget brought an
action against the Earl of Cardigan for criminal conversa-
tion with his wife. The case was tried by a special jury at
Guildhall, and, after a careful inquiry, the jury returned a
verdict for the defendant, and he believed he was correct in
saying that the action which was brought appeared to be
little more than a conspiracy to lix Lord Cardigan with the
criminal act charged against him. The facts connected with
the trial appeared in the Age newspaper, of which, at that
time, Mr. Holt was the proprietor, and he was indicted by
Lord W. Paget for a libel. At this period the act of parlia-
ment, which enabled a defendant to plead a justification
in such cases, had not passed the legislature, and as the
defendant was therefore unable to justify the publication,
be was convicted. It was for the costs of the defence in-
curred in this proceeding that the plaintiff had a claim
against Mr. Holt, and he should state the circumstances on
which he relied to show that the bill had been already paid.
It appeared that Lord Cardigan thought it right, under the
circumstances, to come forward and assist Mr. Ilolt in his
defence, and his solicitor, Mr. Powell, handed over a cheque
for 401. to Mr. Husband on account of Mr. Ilolt, and it was
clear that Mr. Husband had received that amount, as it
was now produced, and was proved to have his endorsement
upon it. An attempt had been made to show that 301. of this
sum had been paid to Mr. Traill, when Mr. Husband
knew perfectly well that this sum was paid from a totally
different source. The learned counsel then read a letter
from Mr. Wyatt, the plaintiff's partner, dated August I,
1845, and addressed to Mr. Holt, in which he stated that he
was no party to the action, and referred to certain sums of
money that had been received on behalf of Mr. Holt, and
also to a sum of 301. from himself (the defendant), which
had been handed over to Mr. Train, aad the letter concluded
by stating that Mr. Holt had paid all that was due from
firm on account of the defence to the indictment, andl[that
if the accounti were strictly looked into it would be found
that there was a balance of 211. due to him. The learned
counsel concluded by declaring that the present action was
a most disreputable one, and said that it was such proceed-
ings as these on the part of attorneys which gave people
grounds for saying that the law was only another name for
spoliation and chicane.
The learned counsel then put in the letter and the cheque,
which were read. _ _ _

Mr. Chambers, in his reply to the dcfendent's case, said
he was extremely sorry to see that his learned friend hail
thought fit to introduce matters into the present inquiry
which ought long since to have been forgotten, and to have
ceased to offend the public car. Whether Lord W. Paget
or the Earl of Cardigan was in the right had nothing
whatever to do with the present inquiry and clearly ought
not to have been introduced into it. The real facts were,
that the defendant had been convicted of libel, and the
plaintiff, Mr. Husband, now sought to recover the costs of
the defence to that indictment, and this being the case, the
defendant had thought tit to instruct his counsel not only
to slander the plaintiff, but also to slander Lord William
Paget, and in fact repeated the libel of which he had been
convicted. What object there could be in raking up these
matters he could not possiby understand, except that it
was to divert the attention of the jury from the real ques-
tion in the cause, and he could not refrain from
publicly denouncing such a course as most unjustifiable and
improper. lie then proceeded to comment upon the con-
duct of Mr. Wyatt, who, he said, wu evidently on friendly
terms with the defendant, and urged that it was a most un-
justifiable proceeding on his part to assist the defendant in
defeating the claim of his partner. lie called upon the
jury not to give effect to the letter of Mr. Wyatt that had
been produced, on the ground that it was not a genuine
document, but had been written solely for the purposes of
the present action, and he said that the appearance of the

document confirmed this view of it. The paper, it was
true, bore the water mark of 1845, but, instead of being an
ordinary sheet of paper, it had evidently been torn from
some old account book, as a portion of the ruled lines still
remained upon it. The learned counsel concluded by re•
minding the jury that it had been clearly proved that
every atom of the work charged fur had been performed,
and he said that the evidence in support of the plea of
payment was such as no jury ought to give effect to to de-
feat a just claim.
Lord Chief Justice Jervis, in summing up, said that un-
doubtedly if the jury should be of opinion that the letter
written by the plaintiff's partner, Mr. Wyatt, was a ge-
nuine document, it established pretty clearly that the bill
had been paid. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff
that this letter was not genuine, and that it was net writ-
ten at the time it bore date, and the character of the paper
and other circumstances had been mentioned in support of
this supposition. Ile must say, however, that they should
not forget that Mr. Wyatt was an attorney and a man of
experience in the affairs of the world, and if he really in-
tended to commit such a dishonourable act as that imputed
to him, it was not very likely that he would do it in such a
clumsy manner that the very first person who looked at the
document could immediately detect the imposition. Tho
learned judge then called the attention of the jury to the
other facts in the case, and left it to them to say which of
the parties they thought entitled to the verdict.
The jury almost immediately. returned their verdict for
the defendant.

OXFORD CIRCE:fr.—MONMOUTH, AUGUST 7.
The commission w•as opened here yesterday by Mr. Baron
Martin. The Crown Court WWI opened for business to-day
at 10, and the Nisi l'rius at 12.
AVM 'S? S.

CHARGE OF WILFI'L MVILIIPAI AGAINST TWO IRISHMEN.
John Mnrphy, aged 27, was climzed r. ith the wilful mur-
der of Thomas Dowd, on Easter Monday, at the parish of
Welles, Newport ; and John Keyi,, was charged with abet-
ting him in the murder.
Several witnesses were examined, whe proved! that
Murphy, in the course of a sensele,s and unmanly row in a
b.m.r house, inflicted, with a chirp knife, the wound on Dm
deceased, which caused his death, and that Keefe at the
same time aided in the attack.

The jury returned a verdict of manslaughter against both
prisoners, and his lordship sentenced Murphy to be trans-
ported for life, and Keefe for 14 years.
GLorcEsTEic, Art:. 9.

The commission for this (shy was opened this evening,
the judges being Baron Martin and Mr. Justice Erie.
Busiuess will coiumenee nn Monday; Mr. Justice Erie sit-
ting at nisi prin., and Baron Martin in the crown court.
The calendar as unusually light for a Gloucester assize, but
there are two prironers charged with murder; two with
manslaughter; two with rape; and several with burglary,
forgery, and highway robbery.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—CARLISLE, Am T.
N. pile. COCIIT.-14101IS Ma. Justice WILLIAMS.
PERCIVAL V. NANRIEV Avis OTHERS.
In this case Mr. Watson, Q.C., Mr. Temple, and Mr.
Cowling appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Knowles, QC.,
Mr. Hill, Q.C., Mr. Manisty, and 3lr. Hodgson for thu
defendant.
This was an action of trespass for pulling up some nets
and stakes on the border of the Solway Frith. The de-
. fndunts justified, as the servants of the Earl of Loosdale,
who they said was seized of the lands where the nets and
stakes were put down by the plaintiff in his demesne as
of fee ; they also pleaded that they had a several fishery
there, which pleas were denied.
These issues lying on the defendants to prove, the learned
cour..el fur the defendants stated the case. it appeared
front tit: opening that the Earl of Lonsdale was substan-
tially the defendant on record. The plaintiff was a
shoemaker thing at !lowness, on the south side of the
Solway Frith, and the question in dispute was whether the
Earl of Lonsdale was the rightful possessor of that shore of
the Frith, and hail a right to commit the tresspass complained
of'. The Solway Frith commenced where the rivers Eden and.
Esk joined, although the river was popularly called the
Eden for several miles from the junction of the two rivers.
The Eden and the Esk were tidal riven, and when the tide
was up they formed a large expanse of water, which was the
natural boundary between England and Scotland. When
the tide was down there was an extensive shore, which
was used for the purpose of staking down fishing
nets; and the place where the alleged trespass was com-
mitted was immediately opposite Downes', between high
and low water marks. The plaintiff ban applied to Lord
Lonsdale's agents to be allowed to set a trap met there
and had been allowed to do so, for a mere nominal rent—a
a-year. But, nut satisfied with that payment, he
had unfortunately come to Carlisle, where he had got what
was called legal advice, the result of which was the present
lroceeding, which, however, it terminated, must entail
arge costs on the substantial defendant, and could,
in reality, confer no hcactit on the plaintiff. For tho
plaintiff it was contended that the place where the
stake nets were driven being between high and low water-
mark, that property belonged to the crown, and did not
belong to the lord of the manor. Formerly this property
belonged to the lords of DAM ; but that family becoming
attainted, the property was granted by the crown to thu
parties under whom the defendants claimed. 'flue Earl of
Lonsdale was now the lord of the manor of Drumbis,:;
Bown,s, where this shore was, and by an ancient survey
of the time of Elizabeth of the shore in question, the rights
now claimed were found to belong to the lord of the manor
of Drutuburg ; and since that period they had claimed all
wrecks and royal fish east on that shore, and hail made a
charge for the anchorage of all vessels upon it, and the
right to do so had been acknowledged in the act of parlia-
, went granting power to mike the port of Carlisle upon this
shore, and where an anchorage charge MAI now mule by
the lord of the manor. Proofs having been given of thew
facts, this was the ilif,ralatitti.
For the plaintiff it was contended that the defendant
had not sufficiently made out his title, and that there
was nothing whatever to show the defendant's right to thu
fishery.
.

Ilislordihip, in summing up, left it to the jury to say
whether they were sati,fied that the plea or the defend-
ants was established, that the soil was Lord Lonsdale's ;
aud, secondly, whether they had sufficiently made out
grant from the crown to Lord Lonsdale's predecessors of
the right to the fishery between high and low water mark.
The jury, after an hour's absence, found a verdict for tho
defendant; At the first and second issues ; the effect of
which is to establish Lord Lousslale's right to the sail, but
not to the fishery.

WESTERN CIRCEIT.-11t000mATEn, Auo. 8.
Lord Campbell, in his charge to the grand jury, congra-
tulated them upon the decrease observable in crime, tho
prisoners being fewer by 131 than in the preceding year.
Nos Paws.
FRANCIS y. LEACII.—(SPECIAL J eay.)—ACTION FOR NEU-

LICENCE AGAINST ATTORNIP.S.
This was au action brought by a surgeon, residing at
Beliester, against a legal firm at Martock, for damages sus-
tained in consequence of the negligence of the defendants as
his professional advisers.
Mr. Crowder in stating the case said the defendants,
Messrs. Robert and John Leach, were attornics and solici-
tors, carrying on their professional avocations in the town
of Manua, and they had acted as the professional advisers
of Mr. Francis for a considerable number of years, having
commenced to act for him at a period when he was
under age, awl continued to du so down to a very recent
period. In 1828 Mr. Francis, who was then about six-
teen or seventeen years of age, was in North America,
and at that period a Miss Mary Bonilfield, who was a rela-
tion of the plaintiff, had made a will leaving nearly the
whole of her property to Mr. Francis. It was important
that they should note that that will was prepared by this
defendants, who were left trustees and executors. Among
other property she devised to them fur the benefit of the
plaintiff an estate at Stoke-under-llain, of the value of
about 8,0001., out of an intended sale of which, this action
arose. On the 2nd of June, 1828, however, Miss liondlield,
in order to make the property more secure, suffered what
in law was termed "a common recovery," thereby revoking
the will which she had made in plaintiff's favour, but not
with any intention of disposing of her property otherwise
than she had already done. In the course 01 the year,
however, she became deranged, and in 1829 a commission
of lunacy was issued, which declared her to have been
deranged since the November preceding, leaving there-
fore the revocation of the will valid, and leaving affairs
in that position, that if she had died at that period sho
would have died intestate, awl her property would havo
descended to her heir-at-law, a person of the name of Hor-
sey. in the month following the declaration of lunacy,
however, Miss Woodfield recovered the use of her reason,
and being of sound and "disposing" mind, she republished
her will. In 181., the plaintiff, Mr. Francis, came of age.
The defendants were still acting as his solicitors, and being
the devisees in trust under the will, and being also con-
cerned in the making of that will, there were probably no
persona so well acquainted as themselves with every circum-
stance connected with the property. In the very next year
there was some question which made it necessary fur them
to advert to the peculiar circumstances under which the dis-
position of this property was made, and the defendants ap-
plied to the then heir at law, Mrs. Horsey, to join in the
conveyance of a small portion of it—an application
which Mrs. Horsey declined to accede to. It would, there-
fore, appear clear, not only that the defendants knew Os
indeed they could not have failed to do) the peculiar eu,
cumstances connected with the will, but that their atten-
tion was specifically directed to it. In 1848, in consequence
of an embarrassed state of his pecuniary affairs, Mr.
Francis was advised to sell his property, and the defendants
were employed to dispose of it by auction, and in this it
was charged against them that they had been guilty of
what appeared to him to be an extraordinary act of
negligence, knowing the fact of the commission of lunacy
having been issued against the testatrix, of the revocation
of the will, of its subsequent republication in a lucid
interval ; these gentlemen totally omitted all mention of
these most important particulars, both from the conditions
of sale' and front the abstract of title. The estate was put-
chased by a Mr. Chaffey, whose lands adjoined, for 7,3501.,
upon which sum he paid down a deposit of 61. per cent.
When the abstract of title was sent in Mr. Chaffey had a
strict inquiry instituted, and his attention being called to
the lunacy of Miss Bonfield, he declined to take the land
unless the validity of the will were established by a suit in
equity, or unless the heir-at-law joined in the conveyance.
The heir-at-law was asked to join in conveying the property,
but ho (as his mother had done before) declined. Negotia-
tions were entered into, and it was proposed on the part of
Mr. Chaffey that he should take the property with she ob-
jectionable title for 0,0001. This the plaintiff would not
consent to, and he was advised to institute a suit in equity
to perpetuate the testimony. Messrs. Leach
applied to by Mr. Francis to file is bill
?,4
• wiashelalrdeacedhyaindedebttl .4 •
alleging
iseimp
tuhrpoe Depiaintibusi
• • •• • tn

77
-(2'.•;.47`t
.*t

and;;;Aln7ycould not see how they could ret paid. Mr.
rely+. then applied to a Mr. Ylulhpo, .olwitor, of Un.
ooln's-Incetields, who tiled a bill; but Mr. Chatley having,
in the interval, at the advice of a Chancery barrister, made
time of the essence of the contract, watchh to d
been
revoke
the contract, ant thus the suit in eqy, which ha
commenced fur the purpose of giving him an unexception-
able title, was of nen-effect, as far as Mr. Chantey was CalP
eerned. The next act of which the plaintiff compledemi
was, that the defendants, on being applied to, returned**
deposit of 7501. to Mr. chalky without consulvatio ting himeir
, and
thus put an end to the contract ; and in aggravation of th
conduct be would ma cation, that acting for certain mort-
gagees they, at the time when the plaintiff was in this state
of difficulty, foreclosed a mortgage of KAM, and sent in a
ball of costa amounting to between 2001. and 3001. Under
these eireumstances the present action was brought.
The case of the plaintiff was established lay a variety of
documents. anal several solicitors from Linci.o's-ion-fields
were called to show that the omission of the fact of the
lunacy and its attendant circumstances front the conditions
Of sale was most improper and unjustifiable.
On the part of the defendant, Mr. Butt, after an argu-
mentative address, called the under-sheriff of the county
and several local solicitors of gnat respectability, who gave
the very opposite opinion. According to their view of the
matter the defendants hod exercised a peculiarly mound dis-
cretion in • misruling from the public view circumstances
which they considered would have frightened away pur-
chaser.. All these gi ntlem, u, however, admitted, on cross-
examination, that the facts outfit to have leen communi-
cated in some way or other to the purcilabtr.
The I. weed Jodie (Coleridge), in summin4 up, told
the ...lariat jury that they must be satisfied that the defen-
dants had loco wrongfully ncglig.nt Indere ;key returned a
wed,. t against them. It was not every act 01 negligence
that would make an attorney liable in an action
like this. lie was hound to bring reasonable skill,
rho relines I dligenee to the discharge of his duties, and
it h took a %MOW view of a legal queetion upon which
much .I,lfenor: might arise; if he worked only twelve
hour. a da),wheit by working thirteen he might have ac-
complished mire for his client, he could nut be held respon-
Mbb in an action like this. They (the jury) were placed
in the position of having to decide a eery delicate question
ta conveyancing, and this question his lordship left them to
decide upon the conflicting evidence they had beard. Upon
the act of commission, however—the refunding of the de-
posit—his lordship weld that it certainly dial seem to him
that the defendants did an 1-ItrtMely injudicious and
wrongful act in taking upon them to do the thing which
they did.
he jury, without hesitation, found a verdict fur the
plaintiff, damages 2.10.1.

SOCTII WALES CIRCCIT.—BRECON, Arc. 6.
BRIMS Ma. 7111.104 RD.
Poietfi, aged 43, who had always borne a very
napectchlt character as a farmer and innkeeper, at Tavern-
y•Doweg, he the Swansea Valley, was placed at the bar
))r-Mt-idly meaning, charged with having broken into the
house of David Williams, at Trecastle, Breconshire, uu the
nia‘:t eel the 7th of February last.
The court was densely crowded, and the interest attached
to the coo, was heightened by the fact that another man,
named Theo. Williams, a blacksmith at Trecastle, had been
tend, insisted, and sentenced to ten years' %rapport:t-
hen, fur the tame burglary, at the last March assizes for
this enmity. From the circumstances then detailed, it ap-
pear, I that the prosecutor, a retired farmer, who hail need-
'VULVA pro pert pperty, WAS awoke out of! his sleep by
nos e- ill leis house, and that he she a man coming up the
Mails alma he felt positive to be Thomas Willman,the
blacksmith ; on his ealliug out " Tom, Tom," the light
suddenly elmappeared, and the man sprung en him in the
dark. 'the brave old fellow though more than *event,
years of age, struggled lustily, awl his wife coming to
loM
ainistater•• they contrived with murk difficulty to push him
down sours; he then got into a back-kitchen, through the
windows of which be attempted to escape. The old man
went outside to step him, and the old woman ran out to call
•as I.illloollr, leasing the front dour open, through which
the burglar made his ha .IpC. At the Kenner trial the old
man swore mat to that the man whomhesaw on
the, was " Toni, the blacksmith ;" and m he had I. sown
him for year' living within 2011 yard', and leaving at one
time or, opiell the se ry house, and, therefore, bring imps
mum' to Is thoroughly elequainted with the doors and
windows, the jury had HO hesitation in finding him Gailly.
It woo then COMM std uu by the enamel fur the prisoner
that it was a remarkable circumstance that a number of
pope. hod been removed from a dee...et-drawer, and
plaeal
In Si NW Vl' in the bunk 'direnlises, while a auvereign In IM
BMW. drawer was not toothed, nor any as title Wiwi And
it was I %pinned that the sosereign mig.it not Iwo bees
been, being wrapped up in paper. A himmer mai Sk with
a pith. of striped 'duff a ere found in the house, and it was
emi,olvred that the tools meght well be the property of a
him kimith.
After the trial, a travelling tinker, named William Morris,
mhos " Willy Itweb." ran mit of the court, and made a
comma...cation to • policesollicer of the district where the
bane cry was commetted, which gate riye to further inquiry,
and ulteenately to the apprehension of Mr. Powell, WOW
tbSTVII with the eutninission of the offenee. It appears
that he had borrowed on two aeveml oevasions the sum
ol Met' trots the prosocutur, David William., to whom to
had given mortgage deed* of his freehold property. An
seam to trumpet repayment or a soreender of the 'elate was
peerding at the time of the natrace, and the actuant given
by Morris was to the, effect that the prisoner Powell applied
to hens tote's...Oily for the purpose of driving pigs to
Merthyr market, had whoa' inters i 4.1. with him on the
Insley. I, and late on the night of the 7th of February took
him he bend him on boreelmek fain the town of liret•llek to
Tree-meth; that they drank a 'wide of pin on the road ; that
ore their arrival at Trveralle the prisoner Powell went into
the Stahl.' Of a mill, and there beck elf hie topcoat, under
coat, and hat, placing a striped tap on his he ad, that tee
thee asked the wittier for a hammer wheels he had re-
quest el him to bring, under lenience of wishing to remove
the staple from a pigsty without disturbing any one at that
unseasonable hour. M, • then stated thet the/ went to
the bark part of the pre titer's house, where Powe•11 re-
moved a board from um Ohl window, and then pushed back
the belt of a closer ; that when:la• was going in, he (Morris)
caught hien by the arm, and told him that he had made a
mieteeke, thinking he hail been too free w ith the gin-bottle;
that the prisoner replied, " Oh, no, it's ail right—come on;
that the wanes* said he would not, and ran away, returning
home to Brecon, a distance. of 12 oaten, on foot, through •
storm of rain, without giving any alarm, or waiting to we
the result of the strange ads, nture. Ile then statM that I
he met the prisoner in Breton at the cud of the following •
wee-k, and then and ut sulempieut interviews reproacheel
him with In•ronittimc sin innocent man to remain in cuetmly,
the prisoner souring him repeatedly, in reply, that he
would either so on the jury hine.di. or get a (mad on, and
thus get the blacksmith Ire', ul time same lime giving Morris
sums el money, amounting altogether to it. or a ; that
daring those interviewee he inquired leer a man milled "Jack
the Ragman,- and nuule is bargain with both wahines to
go again to, Trecastle and get the deeds uway from the
old mine's house; that they gut money from him on this se-'
.r and that he waited at a road-side ion one aught under
the iiiipreseion that they had genie on to commit the bur-
glary, but that, i.e fact, they heel returnee' to Brecon, and
neat day told him they could nut get the papers. blorris
captained his long silence by intimating that he had no ob-
jettion to take the prisoner money as long as no innocent
person sulferesl in his encash, lout that his cumeience would I
not permit him to remain at peace after the blacksmith had
been sentesertal to transportation.
Feet the eletence, it was urged by Mr. Serjeant Jones that'
the story related by Morris was too improbable leer belief, •
especially when the high character maintained by the pre-
1110111Vf fur forty years and lees standing in society were ton-
usters3l. It was aloe shown that the prisoner WAS aware
that the principal porteon of thee deed, was removed a
short 1. • previous tee the entice of proseceetor's eoliciteer, at
Llanduvery, and the prosecutor Mensal enure positively
now, us IWiOrl.., to the identity of the blacksmith as the man
whom he saw on the stairs.
On this other hand, it was proved that Powell bad been
wen in eolivemition with Morris in no less than eight
publie-houos at Brecon, and though they were always
talking about pigs and IlOrll• there was uo esidenc.• of
their having either bought or meld any such animals about
the period in question. It woo also proved that l'uwell had
given MAMA a note aligned, value 10/., purporting to be
the price. of a horse, while it was known that the latter had
nu horse to sell; it was also proved that Powell had been in
Brecon 'en the night of the burglary, and had left as tote
as ten o'clock on horseback, and bad previously visited a
public-house in company with Morris on that evenino. It
wss also proved that lis,hael been shut up in a private room
in • public-house with Jack the Ragman for nearly an hour, I
having previously borrowed a Prayer-hook, and desired
that no one should be admitted while they were there. It
was oleo sheens that he had slept at Llanspithist one night,
and had leit early neat morniug in company with Morris
and the ragman.
The tnal oerupied eleven hour., and terminated in a ver-
dict of Gouty; sentence was, however, deferred to this day,
when a long argument took place on the validity of the in-
dictment, which charged the prisoner with breaking in with
intent to steal the goods and chattels of David Williams.
Mr. Serjeant Jones and Mr. 'l. Allen contended Brit, the
jury having returned a verdict of "guilty. with intent to
steal certain deeds," he could not be held to have intended
to steal "chattels," so the deeds were held to be real

groin rip.
-Hi.. lunlohip overruled the objection (having heard Mr
(hove in reply), and sentenced the prisoner to transgurta.
Lion fur ten year,.

THE POLICE COURTS.
- -
SOUTHWARK.
William Bassett, a plum, working at the fore and aft
dock, hotherhithe, was charged with violating the person
of Margoiet Russell, a young woman of weak intellect.
Maria Goodge, • very intelligent little girl, witnessed the ,
plower's condom.
to cross-examination the complainant, • young woman
dins IS, clearly showed that she consented an some mca-
WM
to the prisoner's conduct, but her intellect was much '
as she could not tell the Down of an oath, neither ,
MrstWedasiy idea eta future state.
, Primmer denied the charge.
• Th. meigheettee said he had not the least doubt as to the „
weft eft pew idiot's statement, which was osnoborated
as 121.111.0 girl. Us was very sorry he oeubilast punish
No. he le was the gresteet icassini be ewe saw, for
=nie.adv=e tultirso lilt tholareer tit=
ille wee* mit he berm society.
rheum leselmilesed the mutt. Abbwed by • mob
who WAWA diary twice
etplhe 111. Gempelt Ohneeb.
Awe Murk • petreetal4lehis mot Mew. was
tlgd with Wow* Demi Duey Cm w selltei et

U
1
i