Hereford, Thursday, March...
The Times, 1824-03-29T00:00:00

f tef&re Mr-. Justice PARK atnd a special Jury.) BISHOP V. RICH. This was. an action by Sir. Bishop. a magistrate of the county of Carmrtea against Mlr. Rice, antec magistrate of that county, for a malicious prosecution. It mat' be recollected that in Hlilary Teirm, 1822. a motion wa Tnd by Mlr. Scarlett in the Court of K-ing's Benchl, at the instanre of Mlr. Rice, for a rule calling on Mlr. Bishop to show cause why a criminal information should not be exhi- bited against him for certain misfiemeaniours committed in the dis- charge of? his offce, on which a rule Nfsi was granted. In Easter Termn cause wik showni on the part of Mlr.ishop,and therule was discharged with costs. Mrl. Rice afterwards preferredt an indictiment againlst Ir. Bishop at the great segsions o amrhn o ejr alleged to be cominitte by himn ini his affidavit made against the rule, which wa9 removed into the Court of King's Bench, andl taken down for trial at the last assizes for Hlereford. The case came on for trial, when it appeared, before witnesses wvere examined on the merits't,that there was aL variance between the recital and the rule of Court of a letter in the spelling of a long W'elsh name, aznd MNr. Jua- tcBetwho presided, directed an acquittal, Observing thiat the recordTha.dwthe appearance of being altered. The present action was brought against Al r. Rice for having promotedi both proceedings trom motives of mlalice, and without prt'bable ciuse for either. Ai1r. MAULH stated thle substance of the declaration, to which the defendant pleaded the genera, issue. Mlr. CAStPBgLL creened the case on behalf of the plaintiff-a gentleman advanced in years, who had long exercised the functions of a marigistrate, and who now sought to recoverdamages for a grie.v- ous injury inflicted oni him by a gentleman wvho was also a magis- trate, antI with whom lie had lung been intimate. In referring to the prosecution for perjury, the learned counsel obsered, that at the trial, when the defendant was acquiitted on the groannd of variance, the counsel for the prosecutor was understood to intimate that the error might have been occasioned by design for the purpose of ob- taining an acquittal. Mlr. TAUt.NTON` interposed, and declared thiatlbe had been entirelyI maisunderstood, as he never made or initcnded to convey aniy insinua- tion of the kind. Mir. CA-31PBELL resumed his address, and after adlverting to the relative situations of the parties, and to the general topics arising out of the case, proceeded to state serititint thie charges, ten in num- ber, whichi formedI the grounds of the motion in the (Court of King's Benclh, and the manner in which he proposed to show that most of thenri were maliciously preferred. The first two charges relative to the mDode of applying certaini fines, though entirely groundless, as far as heyimpite corup moive toMr.Bishop, yet, from circum- stances had pehaps s much o apparnt cueatopeclude the plantiff fom seekng for amagesupon them. he third chage as,tha he beng ndetedto ne ichael Davies in the sum of 1. di, or hepuros ofexnertig himself from that debt, giv hi cedioran rde fr 2. nstadof Ii., thus committinig a mean and pettyf fr-aud on the public fromn the lowest mnotives of cor- ruptioni. The truth was, that Davies was not a creditor of Mr. Bishop, but was in debt to him, anti that the order for 2l. wasypo- perly rnade ; for Davies had conveyed aspoor woman and chil 32 miiles by the tiirection of' the magistrates, for whIichi 5d. a mnile was allowed, amounting to 11. 8s. 4d.; and had kept them for five days at his house, for which the remaining Ils. Bd. was a bar-e compensation. The fourth charge was that Mlr. Bishop prevailed on one Wiilliam Evans to pay to hlim 1I. 7s., part of two fines imiposed by Mlr. Bishop on Reem M1organ andi Rece Franc s, whichi was -so far from being' true, that the fines were paid in the presence of M1r. Rice him- -elf to Colonel Wlilliams, a magistrate. The fifth charge was, that Mlr. Bishop) hiaving imposed a fine of 51., ac-. cordinig to his constant practic embezzled that sum. In fair, sutch a fine was imposed on an overseer for refusing to re- lieve a pauper; it was paid to Alr. Bishop ; and seeing the poor wom-an, Alary Davies, in a state of extreme destitution, he, in the spresence, and with the c-oncuirrence of' MIr. Rice himuseilf gave to her 21. lO0s.,p art of the fine : he gave to Rees Christmas, a poor man in a state of great distress, the suini of 1i. ids., anid disposed of the resi- dute of the fine in payment of the constable's expenises. The sixthi charge wvas, thiat Mr. Bishiop, having convicted onie David Evans in thie penalty of'51. for keeping a lurchier, applied the mnoltey to his own ulse, Instead Of distributing it agreeably to the statute. in truth, there was no conviction ; thie iniformiation was preferred at the in- stance of Mir. Rice himnself; the mian was anixiouis to make his peace with Air. Rice, who hacl frequently miade charges against him, aud it was agreed that he shiould deposit 5l. for thie pay- merit of Mr. Rice's expenses, on the chiarge being withdrawn, whiich moniet wa% dlistributed pursuant to the directions of Mr. Rice himself. The seventli headl ofrcomiplaint was, that Mr. Bishop had embezzled a fine of'21. imposedI by himself and Air. Rice, on a ntan for defrauding the keeper of a turTnpike-gate ; whereas ~Mr. Rice knew that this sumr had beeni, at hiis own de'sire, retumied to the party fined, who liad threatened to bring an action to recover it as illegallv demandedl. For thie eighth accusation-s.hat Mr. Bishop hiad re'ceived a sumn of 21. fromi parish officers, for the dischlarge of his official duties-he did not now seek damages; the truthi being, thiat as lie was quittinig the place where he hiad beeni laboriously cm - ployedon belialf'of the parishioners, One of the officers put a letter inohshandl, which, on his arrival at home, he found ko contain 21., but which lie immediately returned, stating, that it wa quite imrpossible for him to accept compensation for the discharge Of hi L, doCy as a mnagistrate. Entirely free, therefore, as hie was from blame in this respect, he felt that in the nuindI of' another, the act of the parish-officer miighit be confounded with his own, an i he consented that this charge shouldl be considlered as not entirely without probe. ble cause. The ninthi chArge was of a niust enoirmrous nature ; it imputed to Mr. Bishopi, who hiad erown old in the esteem of all who kew hm, tht li issud hi waTant against, a poor wvoman for eloy, nd hen ompomied hatfelony on receiving the suni of il.is inhad, nd prinie f 41.inure. What was the fact ' A coplant as adeto ir.Bisop,thnat a wo-man 'imed. Esther Jame ha bee gulty f flony heissed his warrant, as he was boundto do buton anexamiatio, it appeared that the matter waLs one merely of civil claimi, arising among reka. tions, andI whichl it was great)'v for their interest to arranige. 31r. Bishiop, in the exercise of htis duty. not mierely to set thec law in motion, but to conciliate dIiff'erences, and miake his neighbours love one another, proceeded to assist in thiis ar- rangecment ; andl it was agreedl that Estlher James should return 401. to the complainant, which it was proipot.ed should be done by Thlomas .Morgan, whio was hier debtor, payiniz or giving securitv tbr thiat sum. In purzsuiance of this arrangement. Morgan paitl 31., which was shiortly after paid over to the party entitledI to receive it, and signied a proimissory note for the residue. Out of this transac- tion the indictmenit for perjury arose--A1r. Bishiop having stated in his affidazvit that thez note was miacie payable to Lewis, 'whereas it was alleged that it was mtliae payable to M1r. Bishop himself. Now, even if this w-sigrament were true, it was whiolly iminaterial, if it was bozia fide intended that Rees I,ewis should have the benefit o'f the note ; because if Air. Bishop dreems the niote payable toI his own order, he miight, by endlorsing it, render it in a moment available to Mr. Lewis alone. '1'he tentlh charge was no les than that AIIr. Bishop hiad openedI a hex comnmitted to hiis care, in whiceh certain monev and secuirities which lhed been stolen were deposited, and had taken from thence a large sum of mo. ney. The truth was, that the box wvas lef't in the hiands of Mfr. Bishop, at thie particular desire of the owner, and that after it was f'ounid that the thief could not be apprehiencdetd, the owner lent tile mnoney so Mir. Bisliop, and some other sLuMS, making in the whiole 2001., fo.-which he received that gentlemani's note. The owner himn- self,AIlr.Davi, Jonies, shouild be callteL as awimness-tlternot.e for2001.~ should be produiced-and nio doubt should be left that tilie- charge wvas eatirely witliout founidation. Sursh were the accusations pre- ferred againat Mr. Bishop, the groundlessness of which swas in it- self evidlence of matlice, and of thef.Iseeiooid of many, 01' wliticl .Mr. Rice must itave been fauly cognizant when hie prtferred them. For thie anguish of mind which he hiad suffered during the two years in, w,hich hese charges were impending over him, no damage's could recompense him, but lie looked for snub a verdict as wtiild prove that his character was entirely u-nsullied in the mninds oftdie jury. Mlr. Dealtry, the secondlat' on tIme Crown side of the King's Bench, was called to produce the office copies of the rules'in that Court, the indictment for perjitry, sand the nizii prsiuis record of acquittal. On the comparison of these documents with the record, several variances were detected, but, at length, a couint w'as found free from objection. M11r. Dealtry was examnined respecting the var;ance in the indlictment for perjury, an which the defendant was acquitted, and respecting wliichm ithald been supposced that some itnputahioni was cast on Mr. Bishop).Ilie stated thiat a blaik liad bee left in the ol' pyziisz re- cord of the indlictment lbr the long \ICelsh name in question; that he had himself filled up tltat blaink by imitating, as well as lie could, the same name in the indiennient transmiitted frons the great ses- sions ; that afterwards, thiink-ing there was an error, he converted one part of an so into an r; that the sarsi prins record was now in the state in which.1 he left it; and that the alteration wvas made without any suggestion from aLny quarter whatever. Alr. -TAUNTON said he never mniant to cast any imputation of the kind surmised, o hr. Bishap. The case on the merits was comimenced by evidence directed to sltowr, that the conduct of Mlr. Rice towards Mr. Bishop had its origi in malice. For that purpose it was shown, that one R,,ees GTriglfiths had been convicted, by AIr. Rice, in the penalty of 101, for hiaving game in his possession ; and that a distre'ss Warrant was issued, rind the goods of the defendant sold. Jeffrey Davies, a con- stable, stated, that these goods sold. for the sutn of 41. i5s. ld., out of wicih only fifteen pence was delivered to the officers for the poor, the rest being applietl for expenses. Whben Captain Rice was told so,'he (Mr. Rice) said, `"So much the better." The witness was afterwards called on by the son of the churcliwarden, for hialf the 41. 15s. 6d., whith lie lied previously paid] by the directions of Cap.. t.-in Rice. Ile was asked whethier Mr. Rice was forced to pay the 41. 15a. lid. Ihimself'; but he didI not know that the fact was so. Richard Jones said, hie was present at a meeting of magistr-ates, at Llandovery, in 11321, when they ivere talking about a warrant; anld Mtr. Rice sa'id tO Mr. Bishmop-" You brinig all this against me f you begin to break windows, and I have a -ighit to break thetiti also." Captain Rice was a little in a passion mehen he used these e.pressions. riialter Thomas said, he passed accounts before magistrates, of who.m AIr. Rico -was oine, wlhen M1r. Rice wras in agre;.t passion, rose up against him, and said, " You belong to Bishiop." Hoerell Williams, br tieer-in-law to Rees Griffithis, said he boughit a great part of the goods, anti his sister the other, when they were siold by desire of Mr. Bishop. lie was irepaid by the Overseer's soni. Mlr. Charles Bishiop, non of the plaintiff, said-About the 25th of Novemnber, 1821, 1 saw M1r. Rice at Llandovery in the magistrates' roomn, and having been told, by Colonel Gwyn that there s5as a dis- pute betweesi him and myv father, asked what it was. Captaiin Rice a ine imlposed on a man lot having pheasants in his possessiuii 0ansd he was tle last man to make the charge, for I well knew hli care- lessness in money-matters, and that if Mr. Bishop began with him, he sbould tind tclat he had nmeddled with a malt who never aban- doned what he took in hand; that he had received a great many lines for which he hadnever accounted; antI if lie began, he would follow him uss. If mny father had not meddled with hitn, he would not have interfered with my father. Mly father has been for years an active magistrate; his lands adjoin Captain Rice's, and he lives about a mile and a quarter f&om Caaptain Rice's house. Before I let: home, which was two yeais previous, they wer4 intimate, nand In the haboit of etra4iast?aer as MS5ft tAM u la. th~ti. 'macY continued un IhafFair.. Cross-exanilied..I..1 ave bla a4 Violent quarrel myself with Captain.Ptice about this matter; cballenged, and fought him. Aee~mnc_ooe Ow teemed toretire wheh Isoke to Caistairi Rice, and not to hear the conversation. fr. Sauinders, a magistrate of Carmarthen, and a gentleman ac- quainted with bote parties, said, that at quarter sessions he had often heard Captin ~ifPek of attsunfairlydone by Mr. BishoP, and for vwhich he wfished to check burn, and call him "1a great scoundrel." Captain Rice had said, "1Mr. Bishop has been guilY atf rany bad tireks, and 1 wonder how you can countenance the fellow." Cross-exarainea......r. Bishop's concluct formed the subject Of conversation amnong the magi%trates. The Counsel for the plaintiff' nr!w closed this head of introductory, evidence, andl proceeded to aLdduce .testimony as to tie. third charg madeby he dfenantin te Curtof King's B3ench, that Mr. Bishp gae a ordr fo th payentof 21. to Mtichael Davies, a consabl, fr coveyng womn nmedlizbeth Dayies, and ber chid t prson ofwhch 1. as ntededtopaLy a debt due from Mr iishp t th costale.The prve tht on the 8th of Dc. cembe, 186. Elzabeh Daves ws comitted to prisonD for a year, on account of e having been the mother of an illegitimaLte child ; that shewt her chl a o eea askept and sup- ported in the house of Davies the consal,bcuese -was rather unwell, and could not procure horses fo h ore;that sthe was conveyed the distance of 32 mniles on hosbc;adarrived in the evening. They showed that 5d. amiewsteumloedbth vounty, for conveying prisoners to the loaise of Corrcin n that from los. to 12s. would be a reasonable compenisato oacn stable for supporting a woman anid chiild for five day.i~hyas proved that AMichael Davies was tenant of a house to'tyBthp in 1816, at the ratte of 81. a year, in order to raiise the infrneta he was more probably the debtor than the creditor of the plain tifF~ Evidence was next adduced applicable to thefourtihea of charge mande by the plaintiff-that Air. Bishop, in 1817, prevaled on Win. Evans, a c-onstable, to par to him 11. 7sa part of fines imapoed on Rees Mforgan and Rees Prancis. Both t'hese men were cwile, atnd the first of themi swore that the fine of 51. was imposed on Miorgan, and of 31. on Franc-is for refusing to execute an office,. by Coonel Williamns and 1M1r. Bishop ; anid that these fines were severally Paid to Colonel Williamns, whio is since dead, in the presence of Mr. Rice himself, and not to Evans. Morgan, being asked, on cros- examination, wvhether he would tolemnly swear that he paid more than 2!., said he would; but that near about the game time he was fined 21. by Captaini Rice and Colonel Williamst for refusing to obey their summons. Francis stated that his father paid the fine for him, whiceh he afterwards received from the executor of Col. W'ilianss. WVitnesses were then called in reference to the it ground of ac- cusation-that Mr. Bishop, in 1818, embezzled alinTe of SL imposed by him on WVilliam Davis and David Evans, ovmersee, for not re- lieving a pauper. Mlary Davies, -the pauper, siwore that she, being in distress, received herself 21; l0s., part of the fine, from Mr. Bi4hop while Air. Rice was in the roomn. Rees Christmas, a poor old nian, proved that he received 11. SLi, said tobe part otf afine, for therelief oflhiisdistresses. Hiecould notr say hiow long ago he received it, buit David Evans was then overseer of the parish. & In consequence of the temporary absence of a witness, the counisel for the plaintiff passed to thie seventh charge--that Mr. Bishbop, i 18l2,~ enihezzled a suni of 2!. imposed as a fine on a pro ae Mlorga n, for defrauding the keeper of atrpkegt.Te.ahro Mlorgan proved that hexpid the fineipodonhsonbMr Bishop and Captain Rice, ar-d expesst c ogn r Rice's attorney; but afterwards em oe aIerntodm d a return of the money, and receive di hlemr than three years ago, at Llandovery, part of it in Captain Rice's presence, and part from Captain Rice himself. CaLptain Rice said, "ihe would take care what lhe signed in future with Mr. Bishop." Ni- cholas Reece, deputy overseer of the poor in 1820, said, in July of that year he attended the meeting of the magistrates, where Mr. Rice enid Illr. Bishop were, and heard Mir. Rice gay that.he lhad to settle withi the attorney for the fine whiich Thomas biorgas had paid. Mlr. Bishop said, "h e did not like to pay; he would rathier be at the expense of an action, as he was sure he was right." Mir. Rice saidI lic would rather pay the money ; Mlr. Bishop replied, "4if you will pay it, f will allow it in the lime account which I have with you this year." AMr. Rice went away, returned, and said, "I have paid tile money to Mr. Mforgan, "when Mlr Blishoprepeated, "that lie would allow his s-hare out of2 the lime moniey." John Jenkins, servanit to Captain Rice, proved, that three or four years ago, his master had lime of Mir. Bishiop. The plaintiff's couinsel now returned to the sixth charge-that Mr. Bishiop, in 1818, emabezzled a penalty of 51., in which het had convicted a mnan named Davidl Evans. Mir. Lloyd Harris, an at- torney in extensive Dractice, stated, that in 1818, he accormpanied Evanis to M1r. Bislhop, on a chiarge nmade against him by Captain Rice for killing rabbits. Evans on that occasion paLid 61. to Air. Bishop, to hold in his hands for the tinf, begging him to use his in- fluence wvith Captain Rice for its remission. Josiah H4owell proved that Mlr. Bishop paid the constable 31. 5.s. fid. for a fine ab-out rab- bits. Rowland Thomias stated, that maore than five years ago, he saw M1r. Bishop pay 1Os. to Morgan Jones, on account of the auifai of the rabbits; M~1organ Jones w~as there. The plaintiff's attorney proved that no conviction against Davidi Evans at the time in ques-. tion was to be found in the office of tdie clerk of the peace. As no damages were sought on the eighth charge, evidence was now adduced as to the isieththhat Mr. Bishon, in 1819., compounded a charge of felony for- h u f3.I.pi dwn, and the proni~e of a larger reward. It wsprved that Rees I,ewis,1 now dead, married a rtitter of Esther Jame,1 who was with wMrs. Lewis whien slit died. A charge of felo- ny was mnade by Lewis against Esther James, whio atithorized two persons to go to Air. Bishop on her behelf. They begged him so settle between her and Ljewis, and explained the circumstances, when~ 31r. Bishop said he was authorized to setttle on behaf of Lewis. Tue amount was not then agreedl on, but at a satbsequent meeting, it was a-'Teed that Esther James should pay 401. to Wees Lewis : 31. was paidi in part, and a note was to be given by Thomas M6rgan, who was indebted to Esther Jarrre,; for the msidue. Elizubaith Davies swore that Rees Lewis authorized Mlr. Bishop to negotiate for him), and requested him toD do no hanrn to the poor woman, as she was far ad vanced in vears. to which he assented; and that, some weeks after, Mlr. Dishop paid the 31. which he had rceived from Thonsas Morgan to Rees Lewis. In respect of the last charge, that Mlr. Pishop, in 1817, subtract- ed he yoprtyof DavidI Jones, amouniting to 191. and upwards, l in hss,,ands after it had been stolen, evidence was next ofFer- ed. It appearedth, in August, 1817, notes and securities belong- ing to David Jones were tounci after they hiad been stolen from his hiiuse. and were sealed up in a box in the presence of Mir. Rice and Air. Bizihop. The thiief' was not taken; and it was agreed, at the particular request of thte owner, that Mir. Bislhop should hold the notes and securities, whiichi were 'put rinto the box before the magis- trates. Mr. David Jones. the person who wasi robbed, and now atn infirmn old nsan,stated that he afteriwards lent the neoney,and as mnuch ais made up 2001., to Mr. Bishop, for which that gentlemian gave his note, payable with initerest, which was produced in Court and proved by thie attesting witne%s. Mlr. Jones stated thtat lie had had money transactions ivith Mlr. Bishop for 20 years, and never had occasion to comiplain of hiim. On cro.ss.examination, Mr. David Jones said he did not recol- lect comnplainiing to Thomas Mlorgan about Mlr. Bishop. lie did not know that before the note was given, Air. Bsohad helped hinmself to some of the money ; nor did he remnemnber saving so to T'homias Morgan, the auctioneer. Mofrg-an was asking hie&the other day if hie did not recollect such a conversation. Hie did not see lbs box after it was sealed upi in the presence of the magistrates ; the note was given in the witness's own house. It ws never opced in his presence after it was sealed before the maitrates 7. Th 201. frwhiich the note was given was compue fl l hnde bu 1201. in the box ; other money given when the note was signed; and some afterwards. He could not recollect whether.Mr, Bisnop or hie propo,sed the arrangement..Mr. Bishop mean to his house to give the note. Hedianotrecollect MIr. Bishop previouslya apyntohim fortheI ismoncv in the box. He wa~s at a meeting tinoeyi 81 hr legav e an account of thit box ; he di not recollect then stwing that lie had asked Alr. Bishop for leave to take the money from the box, nor that Alir. Bishop had taken iL Ile would not swear that he made no such statement. Re-exatinined.-l-ie had very little recollection of what passed atI thiat meeting h Iis memory was now impaired,l Ile believed that he went to Llandovery inz consequence of a message from Mlr. Bishop. Examined by, AMr. Justice I'AnK.-The witness was it far-er and had sometirnes deposited money with Sir. Bishop, who aUowe him inter, at. He never, to his knowledge, in his life, charged Mr. Bishop wivihl having stoleii his piroperty. It was proved that the extra costs of the criminal informastion,and the costs of the indictment for perjury, were not lIm than 4001. To prove that Mr. Rice was the prosecutor of the indict Ment againist Mir. Bishop, Mlr. Saunders was re-called, who stated thathe saw Air. Rice hand somie of the witnesses into the (Gra ury roonm. The original indictment produced was endotsed "Wie Rice, Esq., prosecutor." Thise tas the- case for tite plaintiff. Mlr. TAUN TON- atldressed the Jury for the defendant. In the commaiencement of his speech, be begged to repeat his disavowal Of t he irnpucation which he hail been supposed to easit, but which he did not east, that Mlr. Bis;hop had altered the record of the indict- ment for perjury, in order to ensure his own acquittal. When the objection was taken, lie submnitted in answer to that objection in point of law, that thne defendant himself brought down the reoDrd ; but he intended to insginuate nothiing. WVith respet to the express evi. deuice of mialice, lie enitreated the -jury to observe how en- tirely inconclusive the testimiony had been with respect to the transaction as to the goods- of Griffiths ; witk how much caution the statements of Mlr. Charles Bishop xhould be re- ceived, when it was recollected that he had so f'a yielded to amnirble feelings of' zeal in his father's cau-se, as to fight a duel with Mr. Rice, and to how little these expressions, when fairly weighed, amiounited. Adverting t te charges them2selves, hebegged them to recollect, that the counsel for the plaintiff had been compelled to ad-. mit that thiree of themi were sustained by probable cause, and to weigh this as bearing materially on the only, question for them to decide- whether -M1r. Rice acted hboed fuie or from malice. After s-ome fur- ther observations, the learned counsel entered on the consideration of all the charges scriatim at great lenigth, and .on a statement of the. evidence, by which he would show that Mtr. Rice was well justified in preferring them. M'e reret that our limits will not enable us to give even an outline of the lcarned counsel's speech, which occupied from three to four hours; but the want ef which, a statement of the heads of evidencc will, in some tneaKsure, sugply. In condusion, the learned counsel stated, that though Mr. Bire's name appesred signed to the notice of motion-tlhough he was the nominal prOse- cuttor, and as such responsible in law-yet, the proceedings esna. nated from the magistrates of Carmarthen, who had felt that- Asr. Bishop was no longer worthy to asspciate witlh them ; and they had since giyen to Mr. Rice their thanks. Before it was commenced, Air. Bishop was called on for his explanation: he attenapted-to give orne, which was unsatisfactory; -and in consequence the mrnoior was made, supported by a host of affidarits, which were fully sttffl. cient to justify the proceedings. On the third charge, Mtichael Davies, the constable, employea to convey Elizabeth Davies to Carurarthen gaol was called. He swore, that, at the time Mr. Bi'sop was indeMted to him in the sum of 11. for ale, for which he bad often applied io vain, Mr. Bishop gave him an order for 21., which he recived; snd, on ap. plication shortly afterwards for the debt, was told bs Mr. Bisop *' There is no satisfying you: you got 21. the other day when 11 was quite enough." Heasked soritagain when lepaidhisrent; but M4r. Bishop refused to allow it, saying-" He should not give all to the servants." Cross-examined.-He didf not know that he had received too much, but became aware of It when he asked for the li. the second timie. He complained to Captain Ribe_ that Mr. Bishop did not use him weil, and then mentioned that whehad rece1i-d $o0nauch for carrying Elizesbesh Davies~to gaoL ::- On thefomo-th charge, XVillsssn Evans, the comstwof-a i it,vaa nllee d.M}r. Bishop pireyailed onlto palc.11.-7 . out tof X fiiel2Siqeped on ltees'Frsncis and- Rees Moeg!$1 ed 'iria hlae Ithose'i,'ei w&deVfed by} Colon'r Me Z'isHi^o~fr e- ttsing to a tit flpfce. Rees Francis was fined 6L, and Rees t adt F3nei p i., d Morgan 2L to the wit- ness ott redem t dWillia ma, who reFused thetm, and deiirtdblm to [keep them till he should caU for them to lay on the road. le aftervwards raw Mr. Bishop who tola him to call on hin- ; hedid so; MIr. Bithop asked if he handpaid the 51. ; he answered in thensiative; 3Ir. Bishop gaited if he had it by him; the witness rephiea, "N;,ot thc whole ;" Mfr. Bishop said, " He vanted to see him, ashe wsnted alittk money to send totheservant for coal.'" The witness gave him agtiinea andtrwo three shilling tokens, part of thhe fines, He did not knowv thst the fines ever were laid out on the road. H Uoto The order for the payment of the fines was produced, and cor- r nded in amount wfth the sums stated by the witness. On cress.examination, the vitness said Rees Alorgan did not ap. pear, and -as fined 21. lie would not have mentioned it, if he had not heard Mir. Bishop say, in the magistrates' room, at Liandovery, where many others were present, that others used fines in the same WaI, ard what had Colonel Williams done wthb his own ? fInod he_ t charge, David Evans, one of the overseers who were fIned . for not affording relief to Alary Davies, was called. and stated that he saw the other overseer pay his share, and the money banded to Mr. Bishop, which he did not know that MIr. Bishop ever paid over to the parish. To the Lxtih charge-the misapplication of a penalty of 5l.,alleged to have been paid by anotherDavid Evans, for keeping a lurcler.-. David Evans was called, and stated that he paid the money, " be- causc he had a dog, as they stated." He had been threatened with oroceedings for killing Captain Itice's rabbits. MIr. Lloyd Harris went with him to MAr. Bishop, and he paid 51., having previously killed the dog. Mir. Lewis said, In 1820, he conversed with the defendant on the charge against Alr. Bishop, and an inquiry was instituted in the town of Llandovery on the subject. A meeting tonk place, at whici Colonel Gwyn, Air. Lloyd, Captain WiUiamns, and the plaintiff and defendant were present, atid contlaint was made relative to the fine of Evans II-. Bisliop denied having re- ceived it, or fined the person. Evans was called, and said he had been fined .Mr. Bishop then said, "he bad fo?gotten it, but had received the money." The witness in cross-examination said, that he had been convicted bv AIr. Bishop in his absence. He was sent for to the meeting by Captain Rice, .9 substantiate his charges. There were a dozen or 20 people at the meeting, who were not ma- gistrates. On the scevnth charge-the misapplication of a fine of 21. imposed on Thomas M1organ, the younger-Thos. Thomnas, the constable, stated, that he received 41. IOs. and some silver, for the fine and ex- penses from Air. lMorgan, the attorney. He afterwards saw hlr. Bishop, who asked him ifhe had received a fine ? He said, "l'es," on which Mr. Bishop said, "You had better give it me, how will you take it to divide, as vou do not know the plce where it should be distributed ?" He asked, "} loes not the warrant direct how f should pay it--half to the informer, and half to the overseer ?" To which Air. Bishop replied, "' That is nothing to you ; you pay it over to rme, and then you are free;" and he gave him the warrant and 21. The money never was returned for distribution to the witness. Evan Davies, the surveyor of the highways in 1820, saidhe never received the fine, which indeed was admitted. EUpon the ninth accusation-that of compounding a charge of fe. lony against Esther James-evidence was adduced to show, that when the warrant was issued the old wooman was ill; M11r. Bishop ordered her to be brought. . few days after, the constable was sent agatin with a paper, which Esther James and Thlomas Morgan re- fused to sign, and which he gave back to Mr. Bishop, who was angry to hear that it had been shown to a clergyman. Ir. Bishop then direted him to take the warrant for Esther James again, he replied that she could not leave her bed; Mir. Bishop said, - he would send a chaise for her." Some days after a chaise was sent, and Est. her James was taken to Llandovery before Colonel Gwyn and 1ir. Bishop, and she was discharged, and went home. Rowland Jones said, that in March, 1818, he was passing bv the houseof Esther Jaies, andl was called in by Thomas Morgan, tne blind man, when he was asked to read a note; lie did so ; it was a note for the payment of 371., two months after date, to oir.Bishop, by Esther James and Thomas Morgan. The Rev. WV. blorgan, who read the note, produced a copy made at the time, thinking the proceedings oppressive, and which was in substance as abovestated, being madepayable at theLlandovervBank. On cross-examination, Mr. M organ said he thought 71. 'was roo mueb, but he knew nothing of the facts. Ir. Bishop had granted a warrant against him for an assault; he dismissed the charge, vwith costs. David Jones, who was also charged, paid a guinea; he gave it to him to pay, because he did not wish, being a cergyman, his name to coins in question. Elizabeth Davies, niece to Esther James, said that if she did not sign the note she was to be coninmitted. The witness asked Mr. Bishop why he committed her aunt ? He said he would if else did not sign the note., Shc heard her aunt say that sie was taken by force out of bed. Upon the tenth charge_thsat of onening the box containing David Jones 'A property-Alr. Thomas Alorgan, an auctioneer, uncle to the plaintiff's attrne.y, was called it contradiction to the old man, and stated, that six or nine months after the robbery he had a conversa- fion with himt about the box. The old man said he had heard that the box had been opened, and the money used by Mr. Bishop, end- mentioned it to Captain Rice about three years ago. This conversa- tion was certainlv before the note was given, and the witness recom- mended that it should be taken. Colonel Gwyn, a nagistrate for Carmnarthen, said he was present at a meetng of magistrates at Llandovery, to take into consideration | charges preferred ag,ainst sMr. Bishop by Mlr. lIewis and others, j which MIr. Bishop attended. A charge respecting this box w as mentioned by him to iMlr. Bishop, as almost tantamount to felony. stated wha't it was. He .asked who dared to charge hhn ? On which Captain Rice stepped forward and said, ;I do. AIr. Bishop said, ["ir. Rice was cnrrect as to taking the rnoney, but David Jones was present when he opened the box, requesting that he might have an opportunity of producing Jones. The Monday following was apponted: AIr. Bishop attended, aid complaLined that Mr. Lloyd had been tampering with him the day before; but added, he had sent a sunnmons to prodtice iism. David Jones afterwarts came; he objected to be svworn ; he was examined without oath, and said he had applied to Mlr. Bishop for the box and money, but Mr. Bishop said they could not be given u p till the thief was taken. He said he becamne anxious to have the monev, and called on Mr. Bishup at a su4sequent period: being pressed, he said Mr. Bishop was welcomne to keep the money but he was not present when the box was opened. He added, that he calletI at ilr. Bishop's to regain the securities ; Mr. Bishop asked him to sit down by the fire, and brought the box in one hand, and bonds in the other. Being pressed to say vhether he consented that Mr. Bishop should have the monev, he said, M Alr. Bishop was welcome to keep it," but shook his head. Examined by Mr. Justice PARX.-DaVil Jones said he had given the money anid taken a note for it. He considered Air. Bishop an honourable mans. Afichael Davies was recalled as to the sixth charge, and stated that he applied to Ilr. Bishop forpart of the penalty incurred by David Evans, but did not obtain it, as the latter hopecd to ob- tain its remission from Itr. Rice. He had receiveil 1. from Mr. Bishop sitce the commencement of proceedings. Mlorgan Jones, as to tbse same charge, said Ai r. Bishop paid him no part of the fisie of 5l.J bu aid him lOc. for work. Seymour, a magistrate of Carnarthen, wvas then called, and Mr. TAUXTONc proposed to ask whether the proceedings of Mtlr. Rice fro firm to last hadl not the concurnence of the ma-i- strates of the county. ILr. CAMPwELL objected, and Mr. Justice PARx decided that the answer wotuld not be evidence. Ailr. TAUcTON said this was his case. Air. CAMPBUELL, in reply, put in the affidavit of DavId Evans, who was examined on the sixth charge, in vbich lie gave that part of the case a colouring like that attdbuted to it by the plaintiff, and explained an affidavit which he had previously made on the other side. ilr. TAuNTON' shortly observed on this evidence. It being now pastone in thci morning, Alr. Justice PAR Kaddiessed the jury, and stated that he was quite readv, for his own part, to zo on and finish the cause, but that if they desired to adjourn, he should accede to their wishes with pleasure. The jury expressed a wish to adjourn, and the Court accordingly adjourned till nine on Friday. F-IsDAY, AIARCHr 26. The jury having been re-assembled at the appointed hour, Mr. CAM1PaELL addressesd them in reply on the i"bnle case. After arguing that the express malice was clearly establidhed, and that each of the seven charges was shown to be both ft-seand groulndless, lie concluded by observinir, that if the magistrates of the county of Carmarthen had approved of Mr. Rice's conduct, they would con- tribute to the damages. Mir. Justice PARI charged she jury. Ile explained to them, that |in order to supportan actiosn for malicious prosecution, two circuma- stances must concur--mialice, and wantof probable cause ; neither of which alone would sufflice; for if a prosecutor were actuated by the most diabolical malice, and yet had reasonable grounds to warrant him, he was no' liable; neither was lhe, if he had no suficicat [grounds, and yet acted fairlv and witlhout improper misotives. Is was necessary, however, for the complainant to prove manlice by express words or threats, but thejur) might infer it from the total want Of probable cause, if they considered that the charge was so groundless E tht it must have been malicious. The existence or non-existence of probable cause was a question of la w for the judge, but it was . a question arising on facts which tihC jury were to investigate: in the present instance, he was clearly of opinion that if the tvitnesses for the plaintiff deserved credit, there was none; but whether they did deserve credit or not, he would leave to their decision. The learned judge then read over the whole qvideice, separating that which was applicable to each charge, and commenting upon it as he proceeded. The jury retired for a short timne, and then returned with a verdict for the plaintiffi I.magca 1,0001. HEREFORD. TRTiRSDAY. ARAi.CH 26. NlSI PRIUS COCRT.