The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-20 00:00:00

THE LLA NIDLOF.S RIOTS.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 17.—Betdamin Davies. John Evans
(tailor), Jilin Evans (spinner), Edwai d George, _Lewis
Humphreys, David Hamer. Edward Humphreys, Thomas
Hamer, Thomas Jones, John Jones (Val), Wm. Jones
(fowler), James Jenkins, David Jones, Daniel Jarman,
John Lewis ('Fatto), John Lewis, (Cripplcgate),
Elizabeth Lucas, Edward Morgan, David Morris,
Evan TVantle, James Morris, Margaret Meredith,
Thomas Morgan, John N cholas, Abraham or Aby
Owen, Giles Richards, William Richards, Valantine
Rowlands, Richard Thomas (Rowley), and Ann
IVilliams, stood indicted for riot, rescue, assault, and ob.
structing the Mayor and peace.efficers in the execution of
their duty at Llanidloes, on the 30th of April last. Susan
Owen was included in the indictment, but did not appear,
and her recognizances were entreated. All the prisoners
in a bold but decorous manner severally pleaded Not
Guilty.
Mr. HILL. (for the Attorney-General) addressed the Jury
for the prosecution. He would, in the outset, shortly call
the attention of the Jury to the origin of the present pro-
secution against no less than thirty individuals standing at
that bar, charged with committing or participating in one
common offence. The prosecution originated in the forma-
tion of a Society at Llaradlocs, called the " Political
Union," wherein opinions bad been promulgated that the
working classes had their rights withheld horn them—that
they must seek and secure those rights by physical force, by
main force—that they were tyrannised over by their superiors,
and that these distresses arose from their oppression—that
they had a right—an equal right—an indefinite term, with
the other classes of society ; that was construed that the
poorer classes and the middle classes were entitled to an
equal distribution of property—that they had to obtain it
by physical force. This was language calculated to inflame.
The political unionists were working people. It was im-
possible that peace could prevail in the country—it WAS
impossible that peace could prevail in the country—it was
long as such opinions were put abroad. Every man might
hold opinions such as he thought proper, but he must do
that temperately, and without imputing corruption or im-
proper motives to others, otherwise the law must interfere;
it becomes in such case a crime. As to arms, men may
have arms for their own defence, or for that of their pro-
perty, or for their pleasure, but not for offensive purposes.
No one was at liberty to use a deadly weapon, but for the
purposes of defence, not for attack. In his opinion the
less a poor man meddles with politics the happier he must
be. It was impossible he could be happy as long as he
had his mind agitated. The police bad been established to
protect the poor man as well as the rich—if the property
or the safety of the poor man became attacked, who was to
protect him but the peace officer? and hard it would be if
he were not, in return, to be protected by the law. But
it is often the case when they are called to execute the law
on others they raise a prejudice ; but they must per-
form their duties; and as far as he knew or understood,
they executed those duties forbearingly and firmly. These
deluCed men, the prisoners at the bar, had been told that
their superiors tyranniz,d over them in alt things. Gen-
tlemen, was it possible there could be greater tyranny than
they themselves had exercised ? If such tyranny was to
be tolerated, what would become of the peace of the coun-
try? Suppose the weavers of Llanidloes were attacked by,
any force greater than themselves, would they not com-
plain, and have reason to complain, of such tyranny ? It
was the imperious duty of all to obey the law. When the
police did their duty they acted temperately; and when in
the performance of it they were attacked, it was their duty
to repel it for their own safety. It had pleased the Al-
mighty that there should be rich es well as poor, it was
intended by Providence that. there should be the poorer,
the middle classes, and the upper, each dependent on the
other.

(The trials were proceeding when our account left.)

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—Yonr, Julx 17.

Barnard ill Vaij was indicted for wilful perjury.

The prisoner bad, it appeared, been formerly constable
of Keithly, and had been, up to the year 1833, when the
matter in question occurred, very active in the discharge
of the duties of that office. In that year one Jchn Sharp
had at Keithly wounded one David Smith, by firing at him
with a gun loaded with shot, and was taken into custody
by the defendant an hour or two after the occurrence. He
was taken by him to Bingley, before a Justice there, and
was by him remanded to Keithly until the next occasion
when the petty sessions would be sitting at Bingley, ten
days from that time. During this period he re-
mained in the cage at Keithly, under the defendant's
care. Sharp was subsequently tried at York ; and
after the trial, before Mr. Baron Alderson, the
defendant made an affidavit to obtain his costs, in
which he stated that he had been employed ten days in
journeys to Bingley and other places in searching for, and
apprehending, the prisoner Sharp at Keithly. On these
various allegations perjury was assigned, and evidence was
adduced to show the capture of Sharp was very shortly
after he committed the offence, and that the defendant,
M'Vay, was generally at Keithly during the ten days sub.
sequent to that occurrence, with the exception of his jour-
ney to Bingley. It appeared, also, that he had absconded
on this charge being made. On the cross-examination of
the greater number of witneses against him, it appeared
that they had almost all been, at one time o rather, in cir-
cumstances to have called fir the exercise of the defend-
ant's authority, as a constable, and that there was a consi-
derable grudge against him on account of the active way
in which he had discharged his duties.
A number of witnesses aas called to character, and the
Jury, after retiring for some time, brought in a verdict of
Acquittal.
John Brook was indicted fcr cutting and wounding Wil-
liam Wiight, with intent to murder him..
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, with, however, a
recommendation to mercy.
The prisoner was sentenced to nine months' imprison.
ment, with hard labour.
CIVIL SIDE.—RIPLET V. THOMAS.

This was an action of assault and battery.
Mr. ALEXANDER and Mr. BAINES for the plaintiff, and
Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. DUNDAS for the defendant.

Mr. ALEXANDER gated the case—
It appeared that the plaintiff is a pig-dealer at. Leeds.
On the 224 of March last he was with his servant in a field,
looking over some of his stock, when a pig belonging to
the defendant came into the field, and a dog was set upon
it by the plaintiff for the purpose of driving it out. The
defendant then came up with a shovel, and exclaiming.
" D—n thee, I'll kill both thee end the dog !" aimed a blow
at the plaintiff. The latter put up his hand to ward off the
attack, and received the blow on it. A severe cut was in-
flicted, and some of the bones were injured. The witness,
George Fell, the plaintiff's servant, who deposed to these
facts, stated that the dog was used to keep children out of
the field, but was not vicious. He admitted, however, that
the pig screamed when the dog attacked it. His master
was unable to use the injured hand in his business for ten,
weeks.
Verdict for the plaintiff, damages a