The Central Glamorgan Gazette, and General, Commercial, and Agricultural Advertiser. — 1886-02-26 (Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan, Wales)

OLDBURY. felony. On the other side it was admitted that the At the Oldbury Police Court, before Messrs. G. will was burnt ; but it was said that it was burnt with the old man's consent and in his presence. It C. Adkins and W. E. Chance, Rhoda Bailey (28), was said the mother told William James what she of the Causeway Green, has been charged with had done, in the presence of a person named Bras. sington, on the 4th of July. It was a little strange attempting to commit suicide by taking verminkiller on the 22nd in. The poison was bought by that on the next day the conversation took place the woman from a chemist at Langley. Before spoken to by Mr. and Mrs. Greatßex, when it was making the attempt on her life she wrote two alleged that a longer conierence took place about letters to her husband, in which she stated that a the will. But that was denied by the plaintiff. woman, who was in custody at the time, hail On he 12th of July, 1883, the old man died. They borrowed a quantity of linen which she had purwould bear in mind that by the will being destroyed chased in anticipation oi her approaching confinement, and to that she attributed her rash settee. the plaintiff would be heir-at-law and therefore it was a matter of vital interest to him. :subsequently This woman, she said, had ruined he ; aril an amicable arrangement was arrived at, by which she asked that her youngest child might be placed plaintiff waived his right, and his mother was in the Union. She denied having not given her children enough to eat, and said to receive £6O a year. Atterwarde Edward James they would procommenced an action against the mother, and his bably find her body a short distance front herhome three brothers, William, Lewis, and Arthur, for In conclusion, she asked for forgiveness. 11 sr an offence of which, they had been found gt;ilty, husband, on being told that she was appareuti s would have rendered them liable to penal servitude. di ing in the street, went in the direction The learned Judge called attention to the fact of where she was, but before reaching the spot he Edward James going to Mr. Greatßex to get the fell down and expired.—Mr. Adkins remarked that it was a most wicked thing to do, and one which affidavit sworn in December, 1883. It was a most remarkable coincidence that he should have rendered her liable to a long term of imprisonment, chosen Mr. Greatßex, of all other solicitors in the but they had determined to discharge her. The world. It seemed to him that there was an woman then left the court, attempt on the part of some cunning per. to try and " draw " Mr. Greatßex. He did not attech any blame to Mr. Wilkins, or to Mr. Greatßex. If Mr. Greatßex did disclose those secrets it was a violation of his duty, and we, a very thoughtless act on his part. He then mono to a verj grave part of the case, in which a charge was made against the plaintiff that he was a party to the commission of a crime which was punishable by law. It was, according to the view they took of this part of the case, that they would be guided by what damages to award. As to the interview of the sth July, 1883, to which both Mr. and Mrs. Greatßex spoke, they had oath against oath, and it was a question which they believed, and on whose testimonies they placed the mo t credence. It was undoubtedly the duty of Mr. Greatßex to prove to their satisfaction that the words were told him which he imputed to Mr. James. Then again, they would have to consider if those words imputed to Mr. James the commies or of some crime or offence which was punished by law. Then they would have to consider whether the plaintiff did make use of the words to the defendant. If they thought not, Mr. Greatßex had perjured himself. His Lordship pointed out that the defendant gave the information al eged to Edward James on the 13th December, 1883, but it was not till the 12th February following that he entered in his diary the irounds on which he gave it. Further, it appeared that although it was said at the intervii_w of the defendant with Mr. Wilkins on the sth January, 1885, the case of Cox and Railton was mentioned it was not thoroughly discussed between them until the 12th February. They w add have to consider whether the entry in the diary of the 12th February, 1885, was not, only put there to cover a derelict on of duty of which he felt he had been guilty. In the event of their thinking that the disclosures were made not for the furtherance of justice, they could consider if the 40s. which had been paid into Court was sufficient damage. The verdict of the jury was one for the plaintiff on the breach of duty count—damages £l5O over the 40s. paid into court, with costs. On the slander count, a verdict for the defendant, with costs. His Lordship gave judgment accordingly, and refused to stay execution in order that a point of Law might be raised.  A YOUTH CONVICTED OF HOUSEBREAKING  At the Wednesbu7y PolicebOurt, Alfred Welch (14), no occupation, Shakespeare Road, Birmingham, has been charged with house creaking, and stealing a quantity of linen collars, ties, and utude, the property of William Thorrington, shoemaker, Bridge Street, Weduesbury, on the 22nd Fouruary. The prosecutor on Monday morning found that his premises had been broken into, and a quantity of goods disarranged. On searching the houso the prisoner was found concealed, and had the boxes of coliars and ties tied up and ready to be taken away.—The prisoner, Will) had been previously convicted, was tierdenced to tures months' imprisonment.